Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W purchased a used car through a hire purchase agreement with Autolend in May 2024 and complained in September 2025 about a defective timing belt requiring replacement. He claimed the car was of unsatisfactory quality and had been misrepresented, seeking early termination of the agreement. The ombudsman found that while the timing belt did fail, the car was of satisfactory quality at the time of supply because the three-year gap in servicing prior to Mr W's acquisition (during which the car travelled 21,000 miles) likely caused the premature failure. For a six-year-old used car priced at £9,500, lower quality expectations apply, and Mr W was aware of the incomplete service history when purchasing. No evidence supported a specific manufacturing defect or misrepresentation, and the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard of 'satisfactory quality' for goods supplied under a hire purchase agreement. For a used car of this age (six years old, 43,000 miles, £9,500 price), reasonable expectations of quality are lower than for newer vehicles. The critical factor was the three-year gap in servicing prior to Mr W's acquisition, during which the car travelled 21,000 miles. Since the timing belt sits in oil and requires regular servicing with manufacturer-approved oil to prevent deterioration, the lack of servicing likely caused the belt failure. Mr W was aware of the incomplete service history when purchasing. The ombudsman found no evidence of a formal recall specific to Mr W's vehicle or that he would have been eligible for any manufacturer compensation scheme. The belt failure at seven years old and 55,000 miles, while earlier than the typical 70,000-80,000 miles or four to six years, was reasonable for a poorly maintained vehicle of this age. No misrepresentation was found as there was no evidence of false statements of fact made to Mr W.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website