Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6358866 of 2026-06-16T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6358866 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-16T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr G purchased an eight-year-old used car with 46,999 miles via a hire purchase agreement with CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD in December 2024 for £26,650. After six months of ownership, he noticed unusual noises and in July 2025 a manufacturer's dealership identified a differential fault with contaminated oil, recommending replacement. Mr G complained that the car was of unsatisfactory quality, claiming the differential failure was due to improper servicing by the previous owner. CA rejected the complaint and the FOS investigator did not uphold it. An independent expert report concluded the differential failure was due to ordinary wear and tear that would have developed over time, not a fault present at sale. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that for an eight-year-old car with significant prior mileage, the faults were consistent with normal wear and tear rather than a defect making the car of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard that goods must be of satisfactory quality, considering the age, mileage, price and circumstances of the vehicle at sale. For an eight-year-old car with 47,000 miles, a reasonable person would expect some wear and need for repairs over time. The independent expert report concluded the differential failure was due to ordinary wear and tear that would have developed over a reasonable length of time, not a fault present at point of sale. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence that the car was supplied with a fault making it of unsatisfactory quality, rather than problems arising from normal usage and age. The claim about improper servicing was rejected as the differential lubrication system is separate from the main service system and the manufacturer has no service interval for this component.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD, all decisions | 229 | 55% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website