Not upheld: Unsatisfactory quality of goods, misrepresentation, unfair contract terms complaint against Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited trading as Porsche Financial Services

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K purchased a used Porsche vehicle under a PCP agreement in May 2023 and subsequently complained that it was of unsatisfactory quality due to multiple recalls, intermittent vibration, and evidence of prior repair work that would not meet manufacturer standards. He also claimed the vehicle was misrepresented as accident-free and that the agreement terms were not properly explained. The ombudsman rejected all complaints, finding that the pre-delivery inspection report showed no signs of damage or poor repair work at the point of sale, and that any repairs identified in a later independent inspection likely occurred after purchase. The recalls were found to be precautionary and the agreement terms were clearly documented and accepted by Mr K.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. For a used car of this age and mileage, some wear and tear is reasonable to expect. The pre-delivery inspection report, being closer in time to the point of sale, was more persuasive than the independent inspection carried out two and a half years later after the vehicle had travelled over 35,000 additional miles. While the independent inspection found repair work that would not meet manufacturer standards, this likely occurred after the sale. The recalls were found to be precautionary and did not confirm faults with the specific vehicle. The intermittent vibration had no documented evidence of being present at point of sale. The agreement terms were clearly laid out and signed by Mr K.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website