Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6269984 of 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6269984 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Autolend must: (1) end the agreement and collect the car with Miss G having no further payment obligations from collection date; (2) refund the £275 deposit with 8% simple interest per annum from date of payment; (3) remove adverse credit file information and mark the agreement as settled in full (not voluntary termination); (4) pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by being supplied with an unsatisfactory car. |
Summary
Miss G purchased a used 4-year-old car with approximately 50,000 miles through a hire purchase agreement with Autolend in November 2024. From the first drive, the car displayed a 'release clutch' warning message with beeping, which reappeared intermittently, particularly on motorway driving. The clutch failed completely in March 2025, and the dealership replaced a leaking slave cylinder and later tightened a neutral position sensor, but the warning message persisted. After four dealership visits and an independent inspection that found no replicable fault, Miss G requested to reject the car in May 2025. The ombudsman upheld her complaint, finding the car was of unsatisfactory quality due to an underlying clutch fault present at supply, and that the dealership's multiple repair attempts had exhausted the single chance of repair provision. Autolend was ordered to end the agreement, collect the car, refund the deposit with interest, and pay £250 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Miss G experienced a clutch-related fault from the day the car was supplied, evidenced by consistent testimony, multiple photos, and the subsequent complete clutch failure within months. Although the dealership and independent engineer could not replicate the fault during inspections, the intermittent nature of the fault and its presentation only in specific conditions (motorway driving) explains why it would not present during a road test. The fault occurred within six months, triggering the presumption under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that it was present or developing at point of supply. The dealership had multiple repair attempts, exhausting the single chance of repair provision. The ombudsman rejected Autolend's suggestion that the fault was due to Miss G's driving style, noting that if this were the case the warning would present constantly rather than in specific conditions, and there was no evidence of excessive clutch wear. The car therefore did not meet the standard of satisfactory quality expected for a 4-year-old car with 50,000+ miles.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend, all decisions | 15 | 33% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website