Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Ferrari Financial Services GmbH
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6366577 of 2026-05-19T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Ferrari Financial Services GmbH. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6366577 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-19T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Ferrari Financial Services GmbH |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | End the finance agreement with no further liability; take back the car without charging for collection; refund Mr P's deposit/part exchange contribution (£57,500); refund any monthly rentals from 9 August 2025 onwards; refund 10% of monthly rentals for periods 16 June-10 July 2025 and 4-8 August 2025 for impaired use; refund £1,320 for expert report costs on production of proof of payment; pay 8% simple yearly interest on all refunds from date of payment to settlement; pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Mr P purchased a new Ferrari through a hire purchase agreement with Ferrari Financial Services GmbH for £232,257.50. Upon collection on 16 June 2025, he immediately identified multiple defects including trim damage, rattling noise, misaligned parking camera, and paint defects. After allowing the dealer to attempt repairs over five weeks, the car was returned with several defects remaining and new issues. FF refused Mr P's request to reject the car, claiming only minor cosmetic imperfections remained. An expert inspection report commissioned by Mr P identified numerous unresolved defects including mechanical issues with the window sensor, door, and parking system, as well as paint and trim defects. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that Mr P was entitled to reject it after FF's failed repair attempt. FF was directed to end the finance agreement, take back the car, refund the deposit and rentals, reimburse the expert report cost, pay interest, and provide £250 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that a brand-new car priced at £232,257.50 should meet a higher standard of quality than a second-hand vehicle, and a reasonable person would expect it to be free from defects. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 specifically includes 'freedom from minor defects' as an aspect of satisfactory quality. Report A provided credible and detailed evidence that the car remained of unsatisfactory quality after repairs, with both mechanical issues (window sensor malfunction, door adjustment problems, parking system failure) and cosmetic defects. The ombudsman rejected FF's argument that cosmetic defects cannot render goods of unsatisfactory quality, and noted that FF had one opportunity to repair under the CRA before Mr P could exercise his final right to reject. Since repairs were unsuccessful, Mr P was entitled to reject the car.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Ferrari Financial Services GmbH, all decisions | 4 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website