Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Blue Motor Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6352996 of 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Blue Motor Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6352996 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Blue Motor Finance Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | BMF must: arrange necessary repairs; remove adverse credit file entries; refund thermostat housing repair cost; pay water pump repair cost; refund £195 transport cost; refund 50% of monthly payments from September 2025 until car is repaired and returned; apply 8% simple yearly interest on all refunds from date of payment; and pay £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Miss M purchased a used car via hire purchase with BMF in April 2025. A coolant warning light appeared during the test drive, which the dealer claimed was a sensor fault and temporarily fixed by topping up coolant. In September 2025, a high engine temperature warning light appeared, and a garage inspection identified a water pump failure. The ombudsman found the fault was present or developing at supply and not due to wear and tear, as it was the same coolant system issue that had appeared during the test drive. BMF was ordered to pay for repairs, refund 50% of monthly payments during the period the car was off road, refund transport costs, and pay £100 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the water pump fault was present or developing at the point of supply because: (1) a coolant warning light appeared during the test drive; (2) the dealer's temporary fix (topping up coolant) only temporarily resolved the issue; (3) the same fault reappeared within 5 months; and (4) both issues related to the coolant system. Although the car was 9 years old with high mileage, the fault was more likely due to the original defect that first appeared during the test drive rather than normal wear and tear. The ombudsman rejected BMF's argument that the fault was due to wear and tear, finding instead that it stemmed from the failure to properly fix the original fault.
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