Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Zopa Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6334104 of 2026-07-02T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Zopa Bank Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6334104 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-07-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Zopa Bank Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Zopa Bank Limited must: (1) end the agreement with nothing more to pay; (2) remove any adverse entries relating to the agreement from Miss F's credit file; (3) refund Miss F for insurance and private registration costs incurred upon receipt of evidence, with simple interest at time-weighted average Bank of England base rate + 1 percentage point calculated from date of payment to date of refund; (4) pay £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by being supplied with an unsatisfactory quality car. |
Summary
Miss F purchased an eight-year-old car through a hire purchase agreement with Zopa Bank Limited on 11 November 2025 for £17,000 cash price plus £4,000 deposit. The car developed multiple faults starting from the day of collection, and no repairs were completed within 30 days. Miss F, who has medical requirements for a specific type of vehicle, was offered an unsuitable courtesy car and had to continue using the faulty vehicle for essential journeys during a period when she and a close family member had serious medical issues. Zopa accepted the rejection and refunded the deposit and two monthly payments (totalling £628.37) plus offered £250 compensation. Miss F disputed whether this adequately compensated her for the distress and inconvenience caused over the 11-12 week period, particularly given her vulnerable circumstances and the delay in unwinding the agreement. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and determined that total compensation of over £750 was fair and reasonable, requiring Zopa to also refund insurance and private registration costs with interest and pay £350 additional compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman upheld the complaint because both parties agreed the car was of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies goods must meet the standard a reasonable person would consider satisfactory. While Zopa had already accepted rejection and refunded payments plus offered £250 compensation, the ombudsman found the total compensation of over £750 (including the £628.37 refund) to be fair and reasonable for the distress and inconvenience caused. The ombudsman acknowledged Miss F's vulnerable circumstances, the prolonged nature of the situation, her need to use an unsafe vehicle for essential journeys, and the delay in unwinding the agreement, but determined that complaint handling falls outside FOS jurisdiction and that compensation should focus on the impact of the unsatisfactory quality itself rather than family members' circumstances.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Zopa Bank Limited, all decisions | 582 | 27% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,913 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,529 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website