Not upheld: quality of goods supplied / satisfactory quality complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend

Decision detail

Summary

Miss F purchased an 11-year-old car with 91,107 miles through a hire purchase agreement with Autolend in December 2025 for £2,949. Shortly after purchase, she discovered a failed battery and slow puncture, and complained 18 days later seeking to return the car. She also noted she had not been offered a test drive and had only later realized the car was petrol rather than diesel, and cited health issues making the finance a burden. Autolend and the FOS investigator rejected the complaint, finding the issues were wear and tear items for which Miss F bore maintenance responsibility. The ombudsman upheld this decision, finding no evidence of defects at point of supply and confirming that personal circumstances do not constitute grounds for rejection under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 test for satisfactory quality, considering the car's age (11 years), mileage (91,000 miles), and price (£3,000). While acknowledging the battery and tyre issues, the ombudsman found no evidence the car was supplied in a faulty state—the battery must have been working when Miss F collected it, and the deflated tyre photo did not show the car's condition at supply. The faults identified were consistent with wear and tear items that naturally deteriorate, for which Miss F bore maintenance responsibility. The ombudsman rejected arguments based on lack of test drive (Miss F's responsibility to verify fuel type) and personal health circumstances (not grounds for rejection under consumer law). The 14-day cooling-off period related only to the finance, not the goods, and had expired before complaint.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website