Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Stellantis Financial Services UK Limited trading as Vauxhall Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Ms S purchased a new electric car from Stellantis under a conditional sale agreement in April 2021. The vehicle experienced three significant faults: a drive battery failure in April 2022 (repaired under warranty), an ABS system malfunction in April 2024 (resulting in a near collision), and a major failure in December 2024 mirroring the initial fault. Ms S sought to return the vehicle in December 2024 and formally complained in April 2025 claiming the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality. Stellantis declined to uphold the complaint, citing that after 6 months the consumer must provide evidence the fault was present at point of sale. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld, determining that without technical evidence such as an independent engineer's report, it could not safely conclude the faults were present or developing at point of sale given the 3-3.5 year timeframe and 22,750-29,000 miles of use. The ombudsman also found Stellantis acted fairly in its end of contract process.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which incorporates a term that goods must be of satisfactory quality. The key issue was whether the faults were present or developing at the point of sale. Since all faults occurred more than 6 months after supply, the burden of proof was on Ms S to demonstrate the faults were present or developing at point of sale. The ombudsman found Ms S's testimony credible and some supporting documentation (invoices and contact notes), but concluded that without technical evidence such as an independent engineer's report explaining the root cause of the faults, it was impossible to safely conclude the faults were present or developing at point of sale given the passage of time (3-3.5 years), mileage covered (22,750-29,000 miles), and multiple variables at play. The ombudsman also found Stellantis did not act unfairly in the end of contract process, having sent appropriate paperwork and reminders, and was entitled to attempt collection of the final payment when Ms S did not formally confirm her return request through the required channels.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website