Not upheld: breach of satisfactory quality term under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against N.I.I.B. Group Limited (trading as Northridge Finance)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased a used 2017 Porsche Panamera through a hire-purchase agreement with Northridge Finance in January 2025 for approximately £35,000. In October 2025, he discovered turbo bearing failure and claimed Northridge Finance was liable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for supplying a car not of satisfactory quality. The ombudsman upheld Northridge Finance's position, finding that the expert warranty report indicated the turbo failure was progressive and likely developed after supply, not present at delivery. Given the car's age (over 7 years), mileage (92,000 miles), and price, the ombudsman concluded the failure represented ordinary wear and tear rather than a breach of the satisfactory quality requirement. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement that goods be of satisfactory quality, considering the car's age (over 7 years), mileage (92,000 miles), and price. Since Mr M raised his claim more than six months after delivery, he bore the burden of proving the defect existed at the point of supply. The revised warranty report indicated the turbo bearing failure was progressive and likely developed after supply, not present at delivery. The ombudsman found it reasonable to rely on the expert inspector's report and concluded that turbo failure on a car of this age and mileage represents ordinary wear and tear rather than a breach of the satisfactory quality term.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website