Not upheld: quality of goods supplied / breach of satisfactory quality term complaint against MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED (trading as Moneybarn)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D purchased a second-hand car on conditional sale from MB in June 2025. In November 2025, after driving through a puddle, the power steering rack failed due to water ingress. Mr D made an insurance claim for flood damage and sought to reject the car and claim compensation from MB, arguing the fault must have been present at supply under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The ombudsman found the statutory presumption of lack of conformity should not apply because the insurance claim for flood damage was incompatible with a claim of inherent fault, no evidence of a pre-existing defect was established, the car's age and mileage suggested wear may have contributed to the damage, and MB had no opportunity to inspect. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies goods must be of satisfactory quality. However, the ombudsman found that the statutory presumption of lack of conformity (which would normally apply to faults within six months) should not apply in these circumstances. The ombudsman reasoned that: (1) Mr D's insurance claim for flood damage was incompatible with a claim of inherent fault and suggested deeper water exposure than a 'shallow road-splash'; (2) no evidence of an inherent steering rack fault affecting this model was presented; (3) the car's age and mileage suggested reasonable wear may have contributed to water damage; (4) the technical report was not contemporaneous and did not persuasively establish a pre-existing fault; and (5) MB had no opportunity to inspect the car. Therefore, the burden shifted to Mr D to prove an inherent fault, which he failed to do persuasively.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website