Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / misrepresentation / misleading omissions complaint against Close Brothers Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6264506 of 2026-05-06T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods / misrepresentation / misleading omissions complaint against Close Brothers Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6264506 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Close Brothers Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement (car finance) |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods / misrepresentation / misleading omissions |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Close Brothers Limited must: end the finance agreement with no liability for rentals after collection; take back the car without collection charges; refund the deposit/part exchange contribution of £1,499; refund rentals from 10 December 2025 onwards; refund pro-rated tax and insurance costs from 10 December 2025; refund warranty contribution costs of £120.16; pay simple interest at Bank of England base rate + 1% on all refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience (less any amounts already paid); remove adverse credit file information. CB can deduct amounts already paid from the total award. |
Summary
Mr L purchased a second-hand car via hire purchase from Close Brothers Limited in September 2025. Shortly after supply, he discovered a coolant leak requiring repairs and subsequently found a cracked, unsafe alloy wheel with evidence of poor welding. Investigation revealed the car had undergone front-end structural repairs consistent with a historic collision, and the wheels advertised as manufacturer wheels were actually aftermarket. Close Brothers had not disclosed either the accident history or the non-original wheels prior to sale. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that the dealer's omissions regarding accident history constituted misleading conduct. Mr L was permitted to reject the car, and Close Brothers was ordered to refund the deposit, monthly rentals from December 2025 onwards, insurance and tax costs, warranty contributions, and pay £250 compensation plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the car failed to meet the satisfactory quality standard under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 due to the cracked wheel rendering it unsafe and likely present at point of supply. Additionally, the failure to disclose the front-end collision history and accident repairs constituted a misleading omission, as this was notable information a reasonable buyer would want to know. The ombudsman considered that Trading Standards guidance supports the requirement to disclose such accident history. Combined with the other defects and the previous repair attempts, the ombudsman determined it was fair and reasonable to allow Mr L to reject the car.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Close Brothers Limited, all decisions | 798 | 51% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website