Veste

Not upheld: satisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Billing Finance Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6248076 of 2026-05-21T00:00:00+00:00. satisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Billing Finance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6248076
Decision date2026-05-21T00:00:00+00:00
FirmBilling Finance Limited
Producthire purchase agreement
Claim typesatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld. The ombudsman suggested Mr A contact Billing Finance about options available following termination of the hire purchase agreement in March 2026.

Summary

Mr A purchased a used car via hire purchase agreement with Billing Finance in December 2024 for £5,145. The car was over 10 years old with 97,498 miles and had passed an MOT and emissions test in January 2025. Mr A complained in August 2025 about suspected DPF deletion and remap after the car developed cutting-out issues. Billing Finance arranged an independent expert inspection which concluded the car was not defective at supply. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence that the car was not of satisfactory quality when supplied and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman considered that given the car's age (over 10 years), mileage (97,498 miles at supply), price (£5,145), and the fact it passed MOT and emissions tests in January 2025 before being driven a further 9,000 miles, the car was of satisfactory quality when supplied. The independent expert inspection concluded the car was not defective at the point of supply. Mr A failed to provide sufficient evidence that the car was not of satisfactory quality or that the DPF had been removed at the time of supply, despite providing later evidence from a garage that could not be timestamped to the point of supply.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Billing Finance Limited, all decisions3121%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website