Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Santander Consumer (UK) Plc trading as MG Motor Financial Services (MGMFS)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms D purchased a used car via conditional sale agreement with MGMFS in July 2025 for approximately £19,000. Within weeks, she reported engine management warning lights, gearing issues, and the car rolling back on slopes, and claimed misrepresentation regarding the car model in documentation. MGMFS offered an independent inspection which Ms D declined unless the car was collected simultaneously, and ultimately did not uphold her complaint. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence of actual faults rendering the car unsatisfactory quality and no misrepresentation that induced Ms D into the agreement, upholding MGMFS's decision and directing no remedy.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard that goods must be of satisfactory quality as a reasonable person would consider them, taking into account the car's age (just over one year old), mileage (13,200 miles), price (£19,000), and condition. The ombudsman found insufficient compelling evidence of an actual fault with the car - warning lights can illuminate for various reasons (such as insufficient petrol as the dealer suggested), and photos showing a dirty interior do not establish unsatisfactory quality. The ombudsman found it reasonable for MGMFS to request an independent inspection and rejected Ms D's insistence that the car be collected simultaneously as there was no reason for MGMFS to accept liability without evidence. Regarding misrepresentation, the ombudsman found no clear false statement of fact that induced Ms D into the agreement, noting that the credit agreement and invoice correctly identified the car model and references to other models arose from Ms D's initial discussions with the dealer. The ombudsman clarified that Ms D's right to withdraw applied only to the credit, not to unwinding the purchase agreement itself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website