Upheld: misrepresentation - supply of goods without valid MOT certificate complaint against Black Horse Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6258314 of 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00. misrepresentation - supply of goods without valid MOT certificate complaint against Black Horse Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6258314 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Black Horse Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | misrepresentation - supply of goods without valid MOT certificate |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Black Horse Limited must ensure the dealership pays Mrs B £500 compensation for supplying the car without a valid MOT, and Black Horse must pay Mrs B £50 compensation within 28 days of Mrs B accepting the final decision. If payment is late, 8% simple yearly interest applies from the deadline date to the date of payment. |
Summary
Mrs B purchased a used car through a hire purchase agreement with Black Horse Limited on 26 August 2024. The car had failed an MOT test three days earlier due to a dangerous tyre condition, and although the dealership replaced the tyre, they failed to retest the car before supplying it to Mrs B without a valid MOT certificate. Mrs B was unaware of this until July 2025 when she discovered the missing MOT. She sought compensation of £3,950 for the warranty cost, insurance, MOT costs, interest, and damages. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding misrepresentation by Black Horse as the dealership's agent, but rejected most of Mrs B's claims because the tyre had been replaced (car was not dangerous), no actual loss occurred, and the £550 already offered by the dealership and Black Horse was adequate compensation for the nine-day period without use of the car.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the car was misrepresented as having a valid MOT when it did not, and Black Horse is liable for this misrepresentation under section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, the ombudsman determined that rejection of the car was not appropriate because Mrs B would have taken the car had she known, merely delaying collection for retesting. The tyre was replaced between 23 August and 26 August 2024, so the car was not in a dangerous or unroadworthy condition when supplied. The ombudsman rejected claims for insurance refund, warranty refund, and interest refund because no actual loss occurred - the insurance remained valid, the warranty remains in force, and no accident or claim was made. The nine-day period without use of the car (15-24 July 2025) was already adequately compensated by the £550 already offered.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Black Horse Limited, all decisions | 1,451 | 27% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website