Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Tandem Motor Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6254286 of 2026-07-07T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Tandem Motor Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6254286 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-07-07T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Tandem Motor Finance Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Tandem Motor Finance Limited must: (1) arrange and cover cost of repairs to lower arm ball joints or pay £1,200 plus 8% simple interest from date of payment; (2) refund £4,096 for customer's contributions to previous repairs; (3) refund rental payments from 13 June to 1 July 2025 and 7 September to 22 November 2025 for loss of use; (4) pay 8% simple interest per year on all refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; (5) remove any adverse information from customer's credit file relating to the agreement. |
Summary
Mr G purchased a used vehicle via hire purchase with Tandem Motor Finance Limited on 26 January 2025. Within months, the car developed multiple significant faults including a car alarm failure, excessive play in ball joints, electric drive transmission failure, and electric drive motor failure, costing Mr G over £4,000 in repairs. Tandem commissioned independent inspections attributing the faults to wear and tear and offered only £500 compensation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality at supply based on video evidence, MOT records, and garage testimony showing the faults were likely present or developing at the point of sale. Tandem was ordered to refund repair costs, rental payments during repair periods, pay interest, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While Tandem's independent technical inspections concluded faults were due to wear and tear, the ombudsman found the totality of evidence more persuasive of pre-existing defects. The car alarm fault within days of purchase, video evidence of ball joint play in February, confirmation of play in the November MOT, and the garage's technical explanation linking the transmission and motor failures were collectively more compelling than the independent reports alone. The ombudsman emphasised that technical evidence, while important, is not the only evidence to consider, and that the timeline and multiple failures within six months indicated the car lacked satisfactory durability at the point of supply.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Tandem Motor Finance Limited, all decisions | 81 | 57% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,913 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,529 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website