Upheld: supply of goods of unsatisfactory quality; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6283760 of 2026-04-10T00:00:00+00:00. supply of goods of unsatisfactory quality; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6283760 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD |
| Product | car finance (PCP - Personal Contract Plan) |
| Claim type | supply of goods of unsatisfactory quality; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD must: (1) Collect the car at no cost to Miss S; (2) End the finance agreement with no adverse credit file information; (3) Refund the £1,700 advance payment (if not a dealer contribution); (4) Refund rental payments for 24 July 2025 to 19 September 2025 after deducting the £2,073.03 already paid; (5) Reimburse all rental payments from 23 October 2025 onwards; (6) Reimburse £520 recovery costs; (7) Pay 8% simple annual interest on all refunds from date of payment to settlement date; (8) Pay £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (9) Provide tax deduction certificate if applicable. |
Summary
Miss S purchased a second-hand car via PCP finance in March 2025 for £69,000. The car developed major faults (engine, exhaust, transmission) within months, confirmed by an independent inspection in October 2025 as likely present at sale. CA offered to cover repairs but not the full quoted costs (£8,000-£16,000). The ombudsman upheld Miss S's complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Rather than ordering repair or replacement, the ombudsman directed rejection of the car as the fairest remedy, given the extended process, significant inconvenience to Miss S (who has a toddler and newborn), and uncertainty about what repairs were actually needed. CA was ordered to collect the car, end the finance agreement, refund rental payments for periods Miss S was without the vehicle, reimburse £520 in recovery costs, and pay £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality. For a car of this age, mileage, and price (£69,000), a reasonable person would expect major components not to fail within a few months of use. Report A confirmed multiple major component faults were likely present at sale. While the CRA provides rights to repair or replacement, the ombudsman found that repair was impractical due to: (1) the process having already taken an unreasonable time; (2) significant inconvenience already caused; (3) uncertainty about what repairs are actually needed; (4) likelihood of further significant inconvenience; and (5) repair costs being potentially uneconomical relative to the vehicle's value. Rejection was therefore the fairest and most practical remedy. The ombudsman rejected the investigator's proposal to refund all payments from date of complaint, as this would constitute double recovery, instead limiting refunds to the period Miss S was actually without the car (24 July to 19 September 2025) and from when she stopped using it (23 October 2025 onwards). The ombudsman increased distress and inconvenience compensation from £250 to £500, recognizing the considerable impact over many months, particularly given Miss S's circumstances with young children and reliance on the car for mobility.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD, all decisions | 226 | 55% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website