Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Mallard Leasing Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6270274 of 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Mallard Leasing Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6270274 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Mallard Leasing Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Mallard Leasing Limited must: end the agreement with no liability for monthly payments after collection; refund monthly repayments from September 2025 to settlement date; collect the car at no cost; refund the deposit (minus any dealer contribution); reimburse the cost of the independent inspection upon proof of payment; apply 8% simple yearly interest on refunded amounts from date of payment to refund date; remove adverse credit file information; and pay £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience within 28 days (with 8% interest if paid late). |
Summary
Miss B and Mr P purchased a used car under hire purchase from Mallard Leasing in May 2025. After repairs in June 2025, they experienced steering and braking problems. Two independent inspections in September and October 2025 confirmed the vehicle had serious faults caused by failed driveshaft repairs. Mallard Leasing rejected the complaint, claiming the faults resulted from pothole impact. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the independent inspection evidence persuasive and determining the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality at supply. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Miss B and Mr P had the right to reject the vehicle after the single chance of repair failed. Mallard Leasing was ordered to end the agreement, refund deposits and monthly payments from September 2025 onwards, collect the car, reimburse inspection costs, and pay £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods supplied under hire purchase must be of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. For used cars, satisfactory quality is assessed considering age, mileage, and price. Both independent inspections provided persuasive physical evidence that the vehicle had serious underlying faults caused by unsuccessful repairs to the driveshaft. The second inspection was particularly detailed and supported the first inspection's findings. While some impact damage was noted, it was superficial and not linked to the primary driveshaft faults. The single chance of repair rule under the CRA meant that once the initial repair failed, Miss B and Mr P had the right to reject the vehicle. The ombudsman rejected Mallard Leasing's arguments about pothole damage and the vehicle's durability based on 5,000 miles of use, finding the independent inspection evidence most persuasive.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Mallard Leasing Limited, all decisions | 38 | 58% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website