Upheld: irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against Blue Motor Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6288580 of 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against Blue Motor Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6288580 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Blue Motor Finance Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Blue Motor Finance Limited must: (1) Reimburse £4,400 for timing chain repair costs plus 8% simple annual interest from date of payment; (2) Reimburse costs of two independent inspection reports (upon provision of invoices) plus 8% simple annual interest from date of payment; (3) Reimburse monthly hire purchase agreement payments from July 2025 to December 2025 (six months) plus 8% simple annual interest from date of payment; (4) Pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Mr M purchased a nine-year-old used car via hire purchase with Blue Motor Finance Limited in January 2025. Within months, the car developed engine noise caused by a worn timing chain. Blue Motor's independent engineer concluded the fault was due to wear and tear after supply, but Mr M obtained two independent inspections concluding the fault was pre-existing and caused by poor prior maintenance. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the timing chain fault made the car unsatisfactory at point of supply, and ordered Blue Motor to reimburse repair costs (£4,400), inspection costs, six months of hire purchase payments, and £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that timing chains are components expected to last for a significant number of years and miles, making their failure a substantial defect. The ombudsman preferred the two independent reports provided by Mr M over Blue Motor's single report, finding them more compelling on the balance of probabilities. Crucially, Mr M's first engineer confirmed that even if the fault date was incorrect, driving 3,000 miles would not have caused the timing chain failure, and the second engineer's detailed inspection (including partial engine dismantling) confirmed the fault was pre-existing and caused by poor prior maintenance outside Mr M's control. Since the fault manifested within six months of supply, the onus rested with Blue Motor to prove it was not present at point of supply, which the ombudsman found Blue Motor had failed to do. The ombudsman rejected Blue Motor's reliance on its single engineer's opinion when faced with two equally qualified independent engineers' contrary findings.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Blue Motor Finance Limited, all decisions | 49 | 32% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website