Not upheld: faulty goods / product quality / right to reject complaint against ALPHABET (GB) LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs R complained about a new car acquired under a hire agreement with Alphabet after it failed to start in July 2025, despite believing the fuel tank was full. She requested rejection of the car and complained that Alphabet's suggestion to take the car to a distant garage for inspection was impractical. A manufacturer's garage inspection in November 2025 found no fault; the car simply had insufficient fuel. The ombudsman found no credible evidence of a defect, noting Mrs R's account of what the garage told her contradicted the garage's own email to Alphabet. Even if a fault had existed, the ombudsman concluded Mrs R would not have had the right to reject the car under consumer law, only the right to repair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard of 'satisfactory quality' for goods supplied. For a brand new car, a reasonable person would expect it to be fault-free and provide trouble-free motoring. The manufacturer's garage inspection found no fault with the car; the issue was insufficient fuel. Mrs R provided only her testimony with no supporting evidence (reports, photos, videos, breakdown records). The garage's email to Alphabet contradicted Mrs R's account of what they told her. Even if a fault had existed, Mrs R would not have had the right to reject the car because the CRA only permits rejection after one repair or replacement fails to restore satisfactory quality, and no repair or replacement was attempted.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website