Not upheld: quality of goods / satisfactory quality of used car complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited trading as Oodle Car Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O purchased a 12-year-old used car with 109,000 miles through a hire purchase agreement with Oodle in August 2023 for £15,991. In January 2024, the car developed an engine problem related to a loose fuel injector clamp, which was repaired in March 2024 at a cost of £1,944. In August 2025, approximately 18 months later, further work was required on the injectors and battery. Mr O complained that the 2025 repairs demonstrated the earlier repairs had failed, and that the car was therefore of unsatisfactory quality, entitling him to reject it. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding insufficient evidence to establish that the 2025 work was due to failed earlier repairs or that the car was of unsatisfactory quality at supply, given the significant time elapsed, the car's age and mileage, extended periods of non-use, and lack of conclusive evidence linking the repairs.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard that goods must be of satisfactory quality, considering the car's age, mileage, price and condition at supply. While acknowledging the car was not new and some wear was expected, the ombudsman found that approximately 18 months elapsed between the first injector repair (March 2024) and the 2025 work, making it unreasonable to conclusively link the later work to failed earlier repairs. The ombudsman noted that the 2025 invoice did not indicate it was correcting an earlier repair. The car's extended periods of non-use complicated establishing causation. The ombudsman applied the CRA presumption that faults within six months of supply were present at sale, but found no such presumption applied after six months, placing the burden on Mr O to prove faults existed at supply. Given the long timescales, lack of continuous investigation, and inconclusive findings, the ombudsman concluded insufficient evidence existed to establish the car was of unsatisfactory quality at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website