Upheld: irresponsible lending / supply of goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6287611 of 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending / supply of goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6287611 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending / supply of goods not of satisfactory quality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | SMFL must: end the agreement with nothing further to pay; remove adverse credit file information; collect the car at no cost to Miss Z; refund the £250 deposit; refund all monthly rentals from 30 August 2025 to settlement date; refund £133 diagnostic and inspection costs; pay 8% simple yearly interest on all refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Miss Z purchased a used car via hire purchase from STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED in July 2025. Within weeks, the car developed serious engine faults requiring replacement, and Miss Z was unable to use it from August 2025 onwards. SMFL and the supplying dealership disputed liability, with the dealership claiming Miss Z's oil top-ups caused the damage. However, the independent engineer commissioned by the credit broker concluded the engine defects were present or developing at point of sale and were not caused by Miss Z's actions. The ombudsman preferred this expert opinion and upheld the complaint, directing SMFL to accept rejection of the car, end the finance agreement, and refund all rentals from August 2025 onwards plus compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman preferred the first independent engineer's report as more persuasive and plausible. The engineer's professional opinion, based on physical inspection, diagnostics and experience, concluded that internal engine wear (worn piston rings, cylinder bores or valve stem oil seals) was present or developing at point of sale, not caused by Miss Z's oil top-ups. The second engineer's report, commissioned three months later, only stated the excess oil exacerbated the problem rather than caused it. Given Miss Z reported issues within weeks of purchase and had only driven 3,400 miles, the fault must have been present or developing at sale, making the car not suitably durable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED, all decisions | 489 | 50% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 18,521 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website