Upheld: irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against Blue Motor Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6342188 of 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against Blue Motor Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6342188 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Blue Motor Finance Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Blue Motor must: (1) End the finance agreement with no further liability for Miss F; (2) Take back the car without charging for collection or storage; (3) Refund all monthly payments from 7 August 2025 to settlement date; (4) Refund all costs incurred for diagnosis, recovery, and storage (on production of receipts); (5) Pay simple interest at Bank of England base rate + 1% on all refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; (6) Pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (7) Remove any adverse information from Miss F's credit file. |
Summary
Miss F purchased a car via hire purchase agreement from Blue Motor Finance Limited on 26 July 2025. Within 30 minutes she experienced clutch issues, and within days the car developed multiple fault codes, low oil levels, and battery failure, requiring recovery on 7 August 2025. She formally rejected the car on 8 August 2025. Blue Motor relied on an independent inspection showing no faults at the time of inspection to reject her complaint. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that the car was not of satisfactory quality at supply, noting that the independent inspection report itself indicated fault codes had been recently cleared and the clutch system had been bled. Blue Motor was directed to end the finance agreement, refund all payments from 7 August 2025, take back the car, refund diagnostic and recovery costs, pay interest and £250 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality. Where a fault is discovered within 30 days, the consumer has an automatic right to reject and the burden of proof is on the business to show the fault was not present at supply. Miss F rejected the car within 30 days. Although the independent inspection found no faults at the time of inspection, the report itself noted that fault codes had been recently cleared and the clutch system had been bled, both indicative of faults being present at rejection. The multiple fault codes, clutch issues within 30 minutes, low oil levels, and failure to start all occurred within days of supply, demonstrating the car was not of satisfactory quality at the time of supply. The independent inspection report does not address the condition at the point of supply or rejection, only at the time of inspection. On balance of probabilities, the evidence supports that the car was faulty at supply.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Blue Motor Finance Limited, all decisions | 49 | 32% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 18,521 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website