Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a new car through a hire purchase agreement with MBFS in September 2025. In October 2025, he had an accident which he attributed to brake failure, and subsequently sold the car back to the dealership at a loss. He complained to MBFS seeking compensation for his financial loss, claiming the car was of unsatisfactory quality. MBFS rejected the complaint, noting that diagnostic checks found no fault with the brakes. The ombudsman upheld MBFS's position, finding that while Mr B's account of the accident was credible, there was insufficient documentary evidence of a brake defect at the point of supply to establish the car was of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard of satisfactory quality, which requires goods to meet the standard a reasonable person would consider satisfactory. For a new car costing £30,000, a reasonable person would expect freedom from major defects and trouble-free motoring. However, the ombudsman found that while Mr B's account of the accident was credible, there was no documentary evidence of a brake fault from either the pre-sale inspection or post-accident diagnostic report. Error codes alone do not confirm a fault but rather provide a starting point for troubleshooting. The dealership explicitly stated the identified radar code would not affect braking capability. Without evidence of an actual fault, the ombudsman could not fairly conclude the car was of unsatisfactory quality at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website