Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6264092 of 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6264092 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Oodle Financial Services Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Oodle Financial Services Limited must: (1) end the agreement ensuring Ms G is not liable for any monthly payments after collection; (2) remove any adverse entries relating to the agreement from Ms G's credit file; (3) refund all monthly payments Ms G paid from May 2025 until the car was collected, without charging any additional mileage costs; (4) reimburse Ms G £156 for diagnostic costs and the cost of MOT and servicing that took place on 1 May 2025 upon receipt of proof of payment; (5) apply 8% simple yearly interest on all refunds/reimbursements calculated from the date Ms G made the payments to the date of refund, with tax certificate provided if required by HMRC. |
Summary
Ms G purchased a used car under a hire purchase agreement with Oodle Financial Services Limited in November 2024. In May 2025, she experienced engine problems, and an independent engineer confirmed a piston ring defect was present at the time of supply. Although Oodle allowed Ms G to reject the car, they initially refused to reimburse her for hire car costs, insurance, diagnostic fees, and servicing expenses incurred during the period she could not use the vehicle. The ombudsman upheld Ms G's complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Oodle was directed to refund all monthly payments from May 2025 onwards without additional mileage charges (covering alternative transport costs), reimburse diagnostic and servicing/MOT costs, remove adverse credit file entries, and pay 8% simple yearly interest on all refunds.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the car was not of satisfactory quality when supplied due to the piston ring defect, which was undisputed. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality and conform to contract within the first six months, with faults presumed present at supply unless proven otherwise. The ombudsman determined that Oodle should refund monthly payments from May 2025 onwards (when Ms G stopped using the car) as fair compensation for usage, which would cover her alternative transport costs without placing her in betterment. Insurance premiums were not refunded as Ms G was legally required to maintain insurance and benefitted from coverage and no-claims discount maintenance. However, the servicing and MOT costs incurred on 1 May 2025 should be refunded because Ms G received no benefit from them (having stopped using the car that day) while Oodle benefitted from collecting a fully serviced car with valid MOT. No additional per-mileage charges should apply to the refund.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Oodle Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 459 | 36% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website