Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality and misrepresentation of hire purchase vehicle complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P purchased a 5-year-old car with 47,133 miles under a hire purchase agreement with CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD in August 2024. In April 2026, the car developed a timing chain fault. Mr P complained that the car was of unsatisfactory quality and had been misrepresented regarding warranty terms (allegedly 24 months instead of 18 months) and pre-supply servicing. An independent engineer concluded the timing chain failure resulted from low engine oil and wear and tear after supply, not a pre-existing defect. The ombudsman found the car was of satisfactory quality at point of supply and that Mr P's awareness of the actual warranty term within days of supply, without raising immediate concerns, demonstrated it was not an inducing factor in his purchase. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 satisfactory quality test, considering the car's age (5 years), mileage (47,133 miles), and price (£31,000). The independent engineer's findings that the timing chain failure resulted from low engine oil and wear and tear after supply, combined with the car's service history showing compliance with manufacturer guidelines, led to the conclusion the car was of satisfactory quality at point of supply. For misrepresentation, the ombudsman found that even if a 24-month warranty was promised, Mr P became aware of the 18-month term within days of supply but did not raise concerns until after the warranty expired, suggesting it was not an inducing factor. Similarly, regarding the promised pre-supply service, Mr P did not raise concerns when the service warning appeared months later, indicating this was not an inducing factor in his purchase decision.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website