Upheld: breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 - goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against CA Auto Finance UK Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6362800 of 2026-05-15T00:00:00+00:00. breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 - goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against CA Auto Finance UK Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6362800 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-15T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | CA Auto Finance UK Ltd |
| Product | personal contract purchase (PCP) agreement |
| Claim type | breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 - goods not of satisfactory quality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | CA Auto instructed to: (1) End the agreement with Mr B not liable for monthly rentals after collection; (2) Collect the car without charging for collection; (3) Refund the £3,000 advance payment (excluding any dealer contribution); (4) Reimburse 15% of all monthly repayments made until agreement ends and car is collected. All refunds to have 8% simple yearly interest added from time of payment to reimbursement. Any amounts already paid in compensation to be deducted from final amount. |
Summary
Mr B purchased a used car via a PCP agreement with CA Auto in May 2025 for £40,159. He reported issues with the tailgate, bodywork, and brakes at point of supply, and an independent inspection in July 2025 confirmed paintwork defects, trim panel misalignment, and tailgate misalignment that were pre-existing at sale. CA Auto rejected the complaint, arguing the defects were cosmetic and not mechanical. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which includes appearance and finish as quality factors. The ombudsman allowed Mr B to reject the car and ordered CA Auto to refund his £3,000 advance payment, reimburse 15% of monthly repayments, and collect the car without charge, with 8% interest on refunds.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods supplied under consumer credit contracts to be of satisfactory quality. Satisfactory quality includes appearance and finish, not just mechanical function. Considering the car's age (four years old), mileage (40,450 miles), and price (£40,159), the ombudsman found that the paintwork defects, trim panel misalignment, and tailgate misalignment meant the car was not of satisfactory quality at point of supply, as confirmed by the independent expert report. Although faults may have been brought to Mr B's attention before purchase, repair attempts failed, justifying rejection. The ombudsman rejected CA Auto's later evidence (the auction house email) as less persuasive than the detailed independent expert report. Rejection was deemed fair and reasonable given the nature and persistence of the defects.
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