Not upheld: goods not of satisfactory quality under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss T complained that a used car acquired under a hire purchase agreement with MotoNovo was not of satisfactory quality, citing a faulty alarm, single key fob, and electrical issues reported on the day of acquisition. She sought to reject the vehicle within 30 days. MotoNovo offered to reimburse up to £80 for a diagnostic report but Miss T did not obtain one, providing only a job card with symptom reports and mobile phone screenshots as evidence. The ombudsman found that without diagnostic findings, fault codes, or technical confirmation of defects—and given that the dealership could not replicate the alarm fault over four days—there was insufficient evidence to establish the car was defective at supply. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. While faults reported within six months are presumed to have been present at supply unless the business proves otherwise, the ombudsman found that no robust technical evidence was provided to confirm any actual fault existed. The job card contained only symptom reports without diagnostic findings or fault codes. The screenshots did not conclusively prove a vehicle defect. The dealership's inability to replicate the alarm fault over four days of monitoring further undermined the claim. Therefore, MotoNovo's request for a diagnostic report was reasonable and necessary to establish whether the car was actually defective.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website