Upheld: misrepresentation of goods (service history) complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6371171 of 2026-05-21T00:00:00+00:00. misrepresentation of goods (service history) complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6371171 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-21T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Oodle Financial Services Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | misrepresentation of goods (service history) |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Oodle Financial Services Limited instructed to: (1) Confirm the agreement has ended and ensure Mr E has paid nothing further above the settlement figure paid by insurance; refund any overpayments for monthly repayments; (2) Reimburse Mr E £1,075 for service costs (with 8% simple yearly interest from date of payment) upon production of evidence of payment; (3) Pay Mr E £300 for distress and inconvenience caused. |
Summary
Mr E purchased a used car via hire purchase agreement with Oodle in April 2025. The car was misrepresented as having been serviced when it had not been serviced since 2022 and had travelled over 40,000 miles. Mr E discovered the misrepresentation upon collection and had the car serviced at a cost of £1,075. In November 2025, while the complaint was with the FOS, the car was damaged in a fire and deemed a total loss by the insurance provider. The insurance company paid Oodle the settlement figure of £14,741.10, effectively settling the agreement early. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Oodle to reimburse the £1,075 service cost with interest and pay £300 for distress and inconvenience, but declined to reimburse the £2,000 advance payment as the agreement had been settled early through insurance proceeds.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman accepted that a misrepresentation was made regarding the car's service history. However, due to the car being destroyed in a fire and the agreement being settled early through insurance proceeds, normal unwinding procedures could not be followed. The advance payment was not reimbursed because the agreement was settled early and Mr E had effectively taken ownership of the car in exchange for the deposit and repayments, and he received approximately £3,000 from insurance which exceeded the advance payment. The service cost of £1,075 was reimbursed as it was a direct consequence of the misrepresentation regarding service history, and the amount was reasonable for a premium manufacturer vehicle. No compensation for impaired usage was awarded as Mr E continued to drive the car until the fire. Distress and inconvenience compensation of £300 was awarded for the inconvenience caused by the misrepresentation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Oodle Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 459 | 36% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website