Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Moneybarn No.1 Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6308655 of 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Moneybarn No.1 Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6308655 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Moneybarn No.1 Limited |
| Product | conditional sale agreement (car finance) |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. Moneybarn was not required to take further action. (Note: Moneybarn had already paid £200 for distress and inconvenience.) |
Summary
Mr T purchased a used 9-year-old car with 88,192 miles through a conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn in July 2025. Following a road traffic accident in August 2025, Mr T claimed the car had pre-existing damage including fuel injector and wheel speed sensor issues. The insurance company authorised full repairs after inspection, and an independent engineer confirmed in November 2025 that the car was fault free with no evidence of failed repairs. The ombudsman found the car was of satisfactory quality when supplied and rejected Mr T's complaint, as his assertions of remaining faults were unsupported by evidence and contradicted by the independent engineer's report.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality when supplied. The key evidence was the independent engineer's report confirming the car was fault free after repairs, and the fact that the insurance company authorised full repairs, which would be unlikely if pre-existing faults were present. The ombudsman found Mr T's assertions of remaining faults were unsupported by evidence, particularly as he provided no contradictory expert report despite having opportunity to do so. Even if faults had existed at supply, the insurance repairs constituted the single chance of repair allowed under the CRA, and these were confirmed as successful.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Moneybarn No.1 Limited, all decisions | 1,419 | 24% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website