Upheld: faulty goods / breach of satisfactory quality complaint against Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6345619 of 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00. faulty goods / breach of satisfactory quality complaint against Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6345619 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | faulty goods / breach of satisfactory quality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | End the hire purchase agreement with no further monthly payments required; collect the car at no cost to Miss M; refund Miss M's deposit in full; pay 8% simple yearly interest on the refunded deposit from date of payment to date of settlement; pay £350 for distress and inconvenience caused by the supply of a faulty car. |
Summary
Miss M purchased a new car through a hire purchase agreement with MBFS in April 2025 but experienced multiple defects including seat belt, infotainment system, mirror, and emergency braking system issues within the first few months. After MBFS rejected her initial complaint and failed to resolve all issues through dealership repairs, Miss M brought the complaint to the FOS. The investigator initially rejected the complaint but reconsidered upon receiving video and photo evidence of the malfunctions. MBFS accepted the recommendation to allow rejection, but Miss M sought refunds of all monthly payments. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, allowing Miss M to reject the car and receive a full deposit refund plus £350 compensation, but rejected the claim for refund of monthly payments as the issues were intermittent and she had use of the vehicle.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The car was supplied brand new with multiple defects affecting electronic systems and safety features. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality when supplied. As the faults were identified within the first six months, they are presumed to have been present at supply. MBFS had multiple opportunities to repair the car but failed to resolve all issues. Therefore, rejection of the car is a fair remedy. However, Miss M is not entitled to refunds of monthly payments because the car was working for a decent proportion of the time and she had use of it. The issues, while present, were intermittent and not sufficiently severe to warrant cessation of use or payment refunds. The £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience is appropriate.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Limited, all decisions | 1,150 | 34% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website