Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Secure Trust Bank Plc trading as Moneyway
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6301877 of 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Secure Trust Bank Plc trading as Moneyway. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6301877 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Secure Trust Bank Plc trading as Moneyway |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Moneyway must: end the agreement with no liability for payments after collection; collect the car at no cost to Mr S; refund the deposit paid; reimburse diagnostic and recovery costs (£837 total); refund all payments except those equivalent to the period from supply to 28 October 2025; remove adverse credit file entries; apply 8% simple yearly interest on refunds from date of payment; and pay £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience within 28 days. |
Summary
Mr S purchased a used car via hire purchase with Moneyway in April 2025. After experiencing issues, inspections revealed the engine had been remapped and an unsuitable aftermarket gearbox from a different model had been fitted, causing significant damage. While an independent engineer initially attributed faults to wear and tear, a manufacturer's specialist garage report in March 2026 confirmed the modifications were the root cause and likely present at supply. The ombudsman found the car was not of satisfactory quality when supplied and upheld Mr S's complaint, directing Moneyway to allow rejection of the car, refund the deposit and payments for the period it was off road, reimburse inspection and recovery costs, and pay £350 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires goods to be of satisfactory quality when supplied. Faults identified within six months are presumed to have been present at supply unless the supplier proves otherwise. The manufacturer's garage report, given their specialist equipment and technical expertise, provided credible evidence that the engine remapping and unsuitable aftermarket gearbox were the root causes of the faults and were present when the car was supplied. The severity and longstanding nature of the damage indicated these modifications occurred before Mr S took possession. Moneyway failed to act on this evidence within a reasonable time, causing significant inconvenience to Mr S. Repair would likely be uneconomical, making rejection the appropriate remedy.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Secure Trust Bank Plc trading as Moneyway, all decisions | 2 | 50% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website