Upheld: breach of satisfactory quality term under Consumer Rights Act 2015; defective goods complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6265656 of 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00. breach of satisfactory quality term under Consumer Rights Act 2015; defective goods complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6265656 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD |
| Product | hire purchase agreement (car finance) |
| Claim type | breach of satisfactory quality term under Consumer Rights Act 2015; defective goods |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | CAF directed to: (1) collect the car without charge; (2) end the finance agreement without adverse credit file impact; (3) refund deposit of £29,695; (4) refund monthly rental payments for periods of non-use (October 2024 onwards, plus 17 days in April 2024, 24 days in May 2024, and 21 days in June 2024); (5) refund £295 for independent inspection report on production of evidence of payment; (6) pay 8% simple yearly interest on all refunds from date of payment to date of settlement; (7) pay £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Ms W purchased a new car from CAF on hire purchase in May 2023. From April 2024, the car developed serious electrical and mechanical faults including dashboard warnings and failure to switch off, despite the dealer attending multiple times. Garage U confirmed the fault and attempted repair by replacing the Start/Stop switch, but an independent inspection in September 2025 revealed fault codes persisted. The ombudsman upheld Ms W's complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality due to lack of durability, and directed CAF to accept rejection of the car, refund the deposit of £29,695, refund rental payments for periods of non-use, reimburse the cost of the independent report, pay interest and £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Ms W provided extremely consistent, detailed and credible testimony about the car's problems. The presence of historic fault codes, the dealer's multiple unsuccessful attempts to fix the issues, Garage U's confirmation of the fault, and the independent report all supported a finding that the car was faulty. Although the issues were intermittent and the dealer could not replicate them, this does not mean the car was not faulty. The car's lack of durability (serious electrical faults occurring at very low mileage on a new vehicle) breached the implied term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that goods must be of satisfactory quality. CAF's argument about low mileage causing battery drain was unsupported by technical evidence and inconsistent with its own assertion that the dealer found no faults. Ms W was entitled to reject the car as CAF had already exceeded the one permitted repair attempt, and the repairs had not succeeded as evidenced by continuing fault codes.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD, all decisions | 226 | 55% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website