Not upheld: goods not of satisfactory quality; rejection of vehicle; reimbursement of repair costs complaint against Blue Motor Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss F purchased a 9-year-old car via hire purchase with BMFL in September 2024 and complained 14 months later about multiple faults including a broken light, loose wheel bolts, TPMS warning light, coolant pipe leak, and corroded exhaust system, seeking to reject the vehicle or be reimbursed approximately £900 in repair costs. The early faults (broken light and loose bolts) were repaired and reimbursed in October 2024, but the later faults were only reported in the complaint 14 months after purchase, by which time the car had been driven 11,000 additional miles. An independent specialist inspection commissioned by BMFL concluded the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at sale and that the current TPMS fault would not have been evident or developing at sale. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that the substantial delay and mileage made it impossible to reliably determine whether the later faults were present at sale or developed through normal wear and tear, and that there was insufficient evidence regarding the TPMS issue.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality considering the age, mileage, and price of the vehicle. The ombudsman noted that while BMFL is responsible for the vehicle's condition at point of supply, it is not responsible for faults developing afterwards through wear and tear. The critical issue was the 14-month delay between purchase and complaint, during which Miss F drove 11,000 miles. This delay made it impossible to reliably determine whether the later faults (coolant pipe leak and exhaust corrosion) were present at sale or developed subsequently. Regarding the TPMS, the independent specialist's opinion that the fault would not have been evident or developing at sale, combined with the lack of evidence that the early TPMS issues were the same as later ones, meant there was insufficient evidence to establish this was a fault present at point of sale. The ombudsman acknowledged Miss F's difficult circumstances but noted she had pursued some repairs during the same period, suggesting she could have raised the complaint earlier.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website