Not upheld: faulty goods / misrepresentation / rejection of vehicle complaint against Go Car Credit Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P purchased a second-hand car via hire purchase with Go Car in October 2023 for £13,998. The car developed battery and electrical issues from December 2023 onwards, with a garage later suggesting the original battery was incorrect type. Mr P sought rejection and refund of all payments plus compensation. Go Car initially indicated support for rejection in April 2025 but later argued insufficient evidence showed the car was faulty at supply, offering goodwill redress of £1,207.87 or voluntary return with mileage deduction instead. Mr P rejected these offers and stopped making payments, accumulating arrears. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence of inherent fault or misrepresentation at point of supply, noting the car's extensive use (38,488 miles) and MOT pass suggested satisfactory condition, and upheld Go Car's position that the complaint should not be upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test given incomplete and contradictory evidence. On misrepresentation, the ombudsman found that silence about an incorrect battery does not constitute actionable misrepresentation, and the act of fitting a battery does not amount to an express statement of fact that it was correct. On satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence of an inherent fault at point of supply. The garage statement was equivocal (stating the incorrect battery was 'a possibility' rather than confirmed cause), the dealer denied fitting an incorrect battery, and the car's extensive use (38,488 miles, MOT pass) suggested it was in satisfactory condition at supply. The ombudsman noted that if the wrong battery had been fitted, problems would have manifested within weeks or days, not over a year later. The ombudsman acknowledged Go Car's supportive approach and reasonable goodwill offers, which were in line with FOS recommendations for rejection scenarios.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website