Upheld: goods not of satisfactory quality; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6307991 of 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00. goods not of satisfactory quality; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6307991 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | goods not of satisfactory quality; breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | End the finance agreement with nothing further to pay by Mr C; Autolend to collect the car at no cost to Mr C; Reimburse £49.99 diagnostic report cost plus 8% simple interest from date of payment; Reimburse deposit of £290 plus 8% simple interest from date of payment; Reimburse all monthly payments from September 2025 plus 8% simple interest from date of payment, less £257 deduction for Mr C's 50% share of brake repair costs; Pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience; Remove any adverse credit file information relating to the agreement. |
Summary
Mr C acquired a used 11.5-year-old car via hire purchase with Autolend in June 2025. Within a short time, he discovered air conditioning and brake issues, and an August 2025 inspection revealed battery, air conditioning, brake, and wheel bolt faults. Autolend accepted the car was not of satisfactory quality regarding the battery and air conditioning in its October 2025 final response, but later changed its position on the battery. The car was returned to the dealership for repairs but remained unrepaired for an extended period, with only the air conditioning being fixed. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, holding Autolend to its original acceptance that battery and air conditioning faults were present at supply, and ordered termination of the agreement with reimbursement of deposit and monthly payments (less 50% of brake repair costs) plus £250 compensation, while determining that brake and wheel nut wear resulted from Mr C's use and were his responsibility under the hire purchase terms.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman held that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality when supplied. Autolend explicitly accepted in its final response that the battery and air conditioning faults were present at point of supply, and the ombudsman held Autolend to this position despite its later attempt to change its stance. While the brakes and wheel nuts were found to be worn, these were serviceable items and Mr C had driven 3,000 miles before inspection, indicating wear and tear occurred after supply rather than being present at point of supply. Given the faults at supply and the extended period the car remained unrepaired with the dealership, rejection of the car and termination of the agreement was the fair and proportionate remedy. However, Mr C remained liable for 50% of brake repair costs as maintenance of the car was his contractual responsibility under the hire purchase agreement, even though he would not benefit from the repairs.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend, all decisions | 15 | 33% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website