Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / irresponsible supply complaint against Close Brothers Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6314172 of 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods / irresponsible supply complaint against Close Brothers Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6314172 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Close Brothers Limited |
| Product | conditional sale agreement (car finance) |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods / irresponsible supply |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | CBL must: (1) End the conditional sale agreement and collect the vehicle at no cost to Mr C; (2) Refund the deposit of £1,200.00 (less any dealer contributions); (3) Refund all monthly payments made from 8 January 2025 onwards; (4) Reimburse evidenced diagnostic and repair costs incurred by Mr C in proving unsatisfactory quality; (5) Pay 8% simple yearly interest on all refunds from date of payment to settlement; (6) Pay £300.00 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (7) Remove any adverse credit file information relating to the agreement. |
Summary
Mr C purchased a used car aged 7 years 9 months with 108,481 miles under a conditional sale agreement with CBL in April 2024. He experienced issues from collection and in January 2025, after travelling only 8,000 miles, the timing belt failed catastrophically, rendering the vehicle unusable. CBL rejected his complaint, arguing the fault was not present at sale. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the timing belt failed prematurely given the manufacturer's recommended replacement interval of 144,000 miles or 10 years, demonstrating the vehicle lacked satisfactory durability. CBL was ordered to reject the vehicle, refund the deposit and subsequent monthly payments, reimburse evidenced costs, pay £300 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. Satisfactory quality includes durability as an aspect. While the vehicle's age and mileage meant some wear was expected, the timing belt failure after only 8,000 miles of use was premature given the manufacturer's recommended replacement interval of 144,000 miles or 10 years. The inspector confirmed the fault was not present at point of sale but the belt failed early, indicating insufficient durability. The ombudsman rejected CBL's arguments about varying causes of timing belt failure as not specific to these circumstances and found no evidence of environmental factors causing the failure. A reasonable person would not expect such a failure under these conditions given the price paid and limited usage.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Close Brothers Limited, all decisions | 798 | 51% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website