Not upheld: Section 75 claim handling - alleged breach of contract for supply of defective goods complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O purchased a used car via credit card in June 2024 for approximately £26,000 and reported power loss and engine management light warnings within a week. He requested the dealer reject the car and refund his money, but the dealer refused. Mr O raised a Section 75 claim with Santander alleging breach of contract, which Santander declined. The ombudsman found that Santander fairly handled the claim because two separate accredited mechanics assessed the vehicle and could not replicate the alleged faults, and for a used car of this age and mileage, a reasonable person would expect lower quality standards. The ombudsman placed greater weight on the professional assessments than on Mr O's photographic evidence and engineering expertise, and noted that Mr O had driven the car 10,000 miles without apparent issue. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 implied term that goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. For a used car of approximately 2 years old with 15,000 miles at a purchase price of £26,000, a reasonable person would expect lower quality standards than a new vehicle. The ombudsman placed significant weight on the fact that two separate accredited mechanics (the dealer and a second dealership) both assessed the vehicle and could not replicate the faults Mr O alleged. Although Mr O had engineering expertise and provided photographic evidence, the ombudsman found the professional assessments from X and the second dealership to be the most reliable evidence. The ombudsman also noted that Mr O had driven the car 10,000 miles after purchase without apparent issue, and that another dispute resolution scheme had not found in Mr O's favour. Therefore, the ombudsman concluded there was insufficient evidence of breach of contract and Santander fairly declined the Section 75 claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website