Upheld: goods not of satisfactory quality; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Lendable Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C purchased a used eight-year-old car via hire purchase with Lendable in January 2025. In March 2025, she reported misfiring to the dealer but received no action. In June 2025, after approximately four months and 4,500 miles, the car broke down due to engine damage caused by a prolonged misfire. Both the dealer and independent engineer identified the same fault, with the independent engineer stating the conditions had not solely developed since supply. The ombudsman found the car was not of satisfactory quality at supply, applied the Consumer Rights Act presumption for faults within six months, and rejected Lendable's negligence argument. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Lendable to end the agreement, refund the deposit and payments from June 2025, pay £400 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the independent engineer's report contradictory, as it stated the fault was not present at point of sale but also that the conditions had not solely developed since supply. Given the references to 'prolonged misfire' in both reports and the fault developing within six months of supply, the ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 presumption that the fault was present or developing at point of supply. The ombudsman rejected the negligence argument, finding Miss C had no clear evidence she should have known not to use the car. The ombudsman concluded the car was not of satisfactory quality at supply and, given the substantial repair costs approaching the car's value, rejection was fair and reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website