Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Tandem Motor Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss N purchased a used car via hire purchase with Tandem in October 2024 for £11,995. Shortly after supply, the engine management light illuminated along with other faults, and she requested to return the car within 30 days. Tandem initially refused based on an independent engineer's report but later agreed she had the right to reject. Miss N preferred repair over rejection due to concerns about obtaining replacement finance, but the ombudsman found rejection was the appropriate remedy given the 18+ month delay and risk of additional damage from continued driving with engine faults. The ombudsman ordered Tandem to end the agreement, refund 20% of payments, reimburse the £149 ECU update cost, pay £350 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the car was of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply because it required replacement of engine critical components (cambelt and/or catalytic converter) almost immediately after supply, which a reasonable person would not expect given the car's age and mileage. Although Miss N exercised her right to reject within 30 days, Tandem failed to allow this initially. The ombudsman rejected Miss N's preference for repair because: (1) rejection was the appropriate remedy under Consumer Rights Act 2015; (2) repairs now would be outside reasonable timeframe (18+ months later); (3) continued driving with engine faults may have caused additional damage making original repair estimates unreliable; and (4) rejection allows Miss N to acquire a replacement vehicle. The ombudsman awarded 20% refund of payments to reflect impaired use and enjoyment, reimbursement of the £149 ECU update cost, and £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website