Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I purchased a used car (approximately eight years old with 67,000 miles) under a conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn in December 2025. Within 14 days, he complained about cosmetic issues, a faulty tyre, and warning lights, seeking to exercise his right to cancel. Moneybarn rejected the complaint, noting that cosmetic issues were consistent with the vehicle's age and mileage, the tyre was replaced as a gesture of goodwill, and diagnostic testing found no faults. The ombudsman upheld Moneybarn's position, finding on the balance of probabilities that the car was not faulty when supplied and that cosmetic wear, tyre damage from external causes, and warning lights related to normal system checks did not establish unsatisfactory quality. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. For a used car, satisfactory quality is assessed considering its age, mileage, and price. The ombudsman found that: (1) cosmetic wear and tear is normal for a used vehicle of this age and mileage and does not constitute unsatisfactory quality; (2) the tyre damage appeared to result from external causes rather than an inherent defect; (3) diagnostic testing found no faults, and the warning light was explained as a normal stop/start system temperature warning that does not indicate malfunction; (4) the vehicle had passed an MOT, demonstrating it met minimum legal standards; and (5) Mr I's right to withdraw from the finance agreement within 14 days is separate from the right to reject goods for unsatisfactory quality. On the balance of probabilities, the evidence did not establish that the car was faulty when supplied.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website