Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against CA Auto Finance UK Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6355826 of 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against CA Auto Finance UK Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6355826 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | CA Auto Finance UK Ltd |
| Product | personal contract purchase (car finance) |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | CAF instructed to: (1) cover repair costs if economically viable within reasonable timeframe, or allow rejection of vehicle and end agreement with nothing further to pay; (2) refund all monthly payments from October 2025 (when vehicle became undriveable) until repairs complete; (3) reimburse evidenced diagnostic and inspection costs totalling £3,754.50; (4) pay 8% simple yearly interest on refunds and reimbursements from date paid; (5) pay £250.00 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (6) remove any incorrect adverse credit file information. |
Summary
Mr S purchased a used car (5 years 4 months old, 44,000 miles) via personal contract purchase from CAF in January 2025 for £20,500. In October 2025, after 9,197 miles of use, the vehicle developed catastrophic engine damage. Diagnostics revealed evidence of prior repair attempts and premature head gasket failure. CAF initially rejected the complaint, but after Mr S obtained a full engine dismantling inspection, the FOS investigator changed their view and upheld the complaint. The ombudsman agreed the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, finding that engine parts failed prematurely compared to reasonable consumer expectations for a vehicle of this age, mileage, and price, and that evidence of prior repairs suggested pre-existing issues. CAF was instructed to repair the vehicle if economically viable or allow its rejection, refund payments from October 2025, reimburse diagnostic costs of £3,754.50, and pay £250 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman concluded the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality because: (1) evidence of prior repair attempts (k-seal product, replaced thermostat housing, non-original jubilee clips) suggested pre-existing issues; (2) engine parts failed prematurely compared to what a reasonable consumer would expect for a vehicle of this age, mileage, and price; (3) the full engine dismantling provided definitive evidence of the failure mechanism; and (4) while the independent inspector thought the fault unlikely to be pre-existing, they did not dismantle the engine and did not comment on the evidence of prior repairs or the durability expectations. The ombudsman found the other evidence more persuasive than the independent inspector's opinion.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| CA Auto Finance UK Ltd, all decisions | 226 | 55% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website