Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Zopa Bank Limited trading as Zopa
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6302192 of 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Zopa Bank Limited trading as Zopa. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6302192 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Zopa Bank Limited trading as Zopa |
| Product | hire purchase agreement (motor finance) |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Zopa Bank Limited trading as Zopa must: collect the car at no additional cost to Mrs M; end the agreement and remove it from Mrs M's credit file; refund the deposit paid (less any dealer contribution); pay £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience; reimburse the £150 diagnostic fee; remove adverse credit file information; and pay 8% yearly simple interest on all refunds from date of payment to settlement. |
Summary
Mrs M purchased a used seven-year-old car with 56,650 miles through a hire purchase agreement with Zopa for £11,000. Within days of supply, she reported multiple faults including a non-functioning seatbelt, defective window, and braking noise. A diagnostic report confirmed incorrectly fitted brake discs and gearbox-related noise, but the dealership's repair attempts were unsuccessful. Zopa initially refused to investigate and did not uphold the complaint. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality at supply and directing Zopa to facilitate rejection, refund the deposit, reimburse diagnostic costs of £150, and pay £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality. For a used car with 56,650 miles and £11,000 price, a reasonable person would expect it to be free from major defects and provide trouble-free motoring for a reasonable period. The faults were reported and confirmed within a short period after supply through diagnostic reports, establishing the car was not of satisfactory quality at the time of supply. An unsuccessful repair attempt entitled Mrs M to reject the car under Section 19 of the CRA. The ombudsman rejected Zopa's argument about diminished value from the accident, finding no evidence the insurer-repaired vehicle had been adversely affected in value.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Zopa Bank Limited trading as Zopa, all decisions | 3 | 83% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website