Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Santander Consumer (UK) Plc trading as MG Motor Financial Services
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6310643 of 2026-06-25T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Santander Consumer (UK) Plc trading as MG Motor Financial Services. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6310643 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-25T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Santander Consumer (UK) Plc trading as MG Motor Financial Services |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | MGM must: (1) take back the car without charging Mr P for collection and end the finance agreement; (2) remove any adverse credit file information; (3) refund the £3,000 deposit with interest; (4) refund all repayments made under the agreement with interest, except one repayment which MGM can retain to account for Mr P's use of the car; (5) refund the cost incurred for the wheel alignment check with interest; (6) pay £150 for distress and inconvenience; (7) pay simple interest at Bank of England base rate + 1% from date of payment to settlement. |
Summary
Mr P purchased a new car via conditional sale agreement with MGM in December 2025 for £28,035. The day after collection, he noticed the car veering to the left. Although the dealership's initial alignment test showed results within specification, a third-party wheel alignment check later revealed issues with toe and caster measurements. Mr P clearly indicated his rejection of the car within 30 days to both the dealership and MGM. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality and Mr P had validly exercised his right to reject it. MGM was directed to take back the car, refund the deposit and most repayments, reimburse inspection costs, and pay £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard of 'satisfactory quality', which requires goods to be of the quality a reasonable person would expect. For a brand new car costing £28,000, high quality expectations are appropriate. Although the dealership's alignment test showed results within specification, the third-party wheel alignment report showed measurements in red indicating issues with total toe, front toe partial, rear toe partial, and caster. Combined with Mr P's consistent testimony, the dealership technician's corroboration, and the minimal mileage (195 miles), the ombudsman concluded on the balance of probabilities that the car had alignment issues at the point of supply, making it not of satisfactory quality. Mr P validly exercised his right to reject the car by clearly indicating rejection to both the dealership and MGM within 30 days of acquisition, as required by the CRA.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Santander Consumer (UK) Plc trading as MG Motor Financial Services, all decisions | 1 | 100% |
| 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