Veste

Not upheld: product quality - satisfactory quality of goods complaint against Black Horse Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6306038 of 2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00. product quality - satisfactory quality of goods complaint against Black Horse Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6306038
Decision date2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00
FirmBlack Horse Limited
Producthire purchase agreement
Claim typeproduct quality - satisfactory quality of goods
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo action required from Black Horse.

Summary

Mr L purchased a used car through a hire purchase agreement with Black Horse in January 2024. The car was approximately 9 years old with 64,790 miles. After initially noticing an oil deficiency, Mr L later identified further faults in September 2024 estimated to cost over £2,000 in repairs, which Black Horse attributed to wear and tear. Mr L complained that the car was not fit for purpose, but the ombudsman found that all identified faults were consistent with normal wear and tear for a car of that age and mileage, and Mr L provided no technical evidence that they existed at the point of supply. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Consumer Rights Act (2015), a car must be of satisfactory quality when supplied. For a car of approximately 9 years old with nearly 65,000 miles, a reasonable person would expect signs of wear and tear. Since the faults were identified after six months, the burden was on Mr L to demonstrate they were present or developing at the point of supply. The ombudsman found that all identified problems (track rod end rubber boot split, drop link worn, auxiliary belt worn, inoperable washers) would be expected through normal wear and tear on a car of this age, mileage, and price. Without technical evidence linking the faults to the point of supply, the ombudsman could not fairly conclude the car was of unsatisfactory quality.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Black Horse Limited, all decisions1,45227%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website