Upheld: irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against Tandem Motor Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6282143 of 2026-04-15T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against Tandem Motor Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6282143 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Tandem Motor Finance Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | 1. Arrange and pay for headlight repairs and window tint removal. 2. Refund monthly payments from 4 November 2025 until repaired car returned. 3. Remove adverse credit file information for that period. 4. Reimburse £50 fixed penalty. 5. Pay 8% simple interest annually on refunded amounts and penalty from date of payment to settlement. |
Summary
Miss D purchased a used 6-year-old car under a hire purchase agreement with Tandem Motor Finance for £14,995 in June 2025. In November 2025, she received a fixed penalty notice for illegal window tinting and complained about car defects. An independent inspection found the car had illegal window tinting, loose and misted headlamps with LED module malfunction, and multiple poor-quality accident repairs. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality when supplied due to the headlight defects, and ordered the firm to repair the headlights, remove the tinting, refund payments from November 2025 until the car was returned, reimburse the £50 penalty, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the car was not of satisfactory quality when supplied because the headlight issues (loose, misted, with LED module malfunction) failed to meet satisfactory quality standards for a 6-year-old car priced at £14,995. While the inspection confirmed the car was structurally sound and roadworthy after repairs, the headlight defects and illegal window tinting at the time of supply breached the satisfactory quality requirement. The ombudsman rejected rejection of the car as disproportionate but ordered repair of specific defects and refund of payments during the period the car could not be used.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Tandem Motor Finance Limited, all decisions | 78 | 58% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website