Not upheld: satisfactory quality and durability of goods supplied under conditional sale agreement complaint against Close Brothers Limited trading as Close Brothers Motor Finance (CBMF)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a used car over seven years old with 46,700 miles through a conditional sale agreement with CBMF in August 2024. The car subsequently developed multiple faults including suspension, electrical, and mechanical issues, with a major gearbox oil cooler failure occurring after approximately 13,000 miles of driving in July 2025. Mr B complained that the car was not of satisfactory quality and lacked reasonable durability. The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard and, relying on expert reports and the timing of fault manifestation, concluded the car was of satisfactory quality at supply and reasonably durable, finding the faults were consistent with expected ageing rather than pre-existing defects. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard of satisfactory quality, considering the car's age (over 7 years), mileage (46,700 miles), price (£21,950), and used condition. While the car developed faults, the key issue was whether they were present or developing at supply. The ombudsman focused on the gearbox oil cooler fault as the primary concern. Report A concluded the defects were consistent with expected ageing and not pre-existing. Report B was inconclusive, stating the fault 'could have been' pre-existing but was 'impossible to be certain'. The ombudsman found it significant that approximately 13,000 miles were driven before the oil/coolant leak manifested, suggesting it was not present at supply. Historical issues from prior ownership were considered unconnected given the time and mileage elapsed. The ombudsman concluded it was reasonable to assume a seven-year-old car with 47,000 miles would have had prior repairs and maintenance, which did not itself indicate unsatisfactory quality or lack of durability.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website