Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against ADMIRAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6294843 of 2026-05-27T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against ADMIRAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6294843 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-27T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | ADMIRAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | 1. End the hire purchase agreement with no further payment and collect the car at no cost to Miss P; 2. Refund the £1,800 deposit; 3. Retain four monthly repayments (£1,258.68) and refund any other payments collected; 4. Refund £443.08 for lamp repairs; 5. Add 8% simple interest per annum to all refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; 6. Pay £375 total compensation for distress and inconvenience (£225 already offered plus additional £150); 7. Remove adverse credit file information and mark agreement as settled in full, not voluntary termination. |
Summary
Miss P purchased a 2017 car with 80,000-82,000 miles under a hire purchase agreement with Admiral for £17,189 in March 2025. The car broke down after 12 weeks with significant engine oil dilution issues that a third-party garage confirmed were present or developing at the time of supply. Admiral acknowledged the car was of unsatisfactory quality and that repairs were not financially viable, offering to collect the car and provide redress including a £1,800 deposit refund, refund of two monthly payments, and £225 compensation. Miss P rejected this offer and referred the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman, also claiming a £443.08 lamp repair cost should be refunded. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, directing Admiral to end the agreement, refund the deposit and lamp repair costs, retain only four monthly payments for usage, add 8% interest to refunds, pay £375 total compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods supplied must be of satisfactory quality. Given the car's age (8+ years), mileage (80,000-82,000 miles), and price (£17,189), a reasonable person would not expect significant faults to develop shortly after purchase. The third-party garage confirmed the engine faults were present or developing at supply, establishing unsatisfactory quality. Admiral's own acceptance that repairs were not financially viable and that Miss P could reject the car supported this finding. The ombudsman determined that while Miss P should pay for her usage of the car (four monthly payments for approximately 3.5 months of use), she should receive refunds of her deposit, the lamp repair cost, and compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by Admiral's supply of a defective vehicle.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| ADMIRAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, all decisions | 74 | 20% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website