Not upheld: goods not of satisfactory quality / right to reject under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased a 5-year-old car with 89,000 miles under a hire purchase agreement with Oodle in December 2025. Shortly after acquisition, he reported an engine management light, overfilled oil, and a suspected oil leak, and sought to reject the vehicle within 30 days. Oodle commissioned an independent 128-point inspection which found no faults, no oil overfill, and no evidence of leak. The ombudsman found that an illuminated warning light alone does not establish unsatisfactory quality without evidence of an underlying fault, and that the independent inspection supported the car met satisfactory quality standards. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard that goods must be of satisfactory quality when supplied, assessed by whether a reasonable person would find the standard acceptable given age, mileage, and price. The independent inspection by a qualified motor technician found no faults, no oil overfill, and no evidence of oil leak despite a rigorous 128-point check. An illuminated warning light alone does not render a car of unsatisfactory quality without evidence of an underlying mechanical or electrical fault. The independent inspection was the most persuasive evidence and supported that the car met the satisfactory quality standard.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website