Upheld: irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6380210 of 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6380210 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Oodle Financial Services Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | End the finance agreement; take the car back without charging for collection; refund advance payment of £12,801; refund monthly instalments paid from 9 October 2025 onwards; refund out-of-pocket expenses totalling £488 (£150 manufacturer garage diagnosis + £138 garage T diagnosis + £100 recovery to T + £100 secure storage); pay simple interest on refunds using Bank of England base rate plus 1% from date of each payment to settlement; pay £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience; remove adverse information from credit file. |
Summary
Mr V purchased a used car via hire purchase agreement with Oodle in April 2025 for £17,606 with a £12,801 advance payment. Shortly after acquisition, the car displayed engine management light warnings, and in October 2025 it broke down due to a hybrid battery fault. Diagnostic reports from an independent garage revealed repeated battery faults logged from April through September 2025, with repair costs exceeding £7,700. The ombudsman upheld Mr V's complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality at point of supply based on the fault data logs showing the defect was present or developing within two days of acquisition. The ombudsman ordered Oodle to end the agreement, refund the deposit and subsequent monthly instalments, refund out-of-pocket expenses, pay £300 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the fault data logs showing battery faults logged just two days after Mr V acquired the car, combined with the repeated pattern of faults over subsequent months, demonstrated the fault was present or developing at the point of supply. The ombudsman rejected the dealership's arguments questioning the credibility of garage T and the authenticity of the evidence, finding no compelling reason to doubt the documentation. The ombudsman also considered durability, noting that a hybrid battery should reasonably last longer than five years and significantly less than 100,000 miles (the manufacturer's warranty period), and therefore the car was not reasonably durable. The ombudsman determined that rejection was appropriate given the length of time since breakdown, the complexity and cost of repair, and the inconvenience to Mr V.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Oodle Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 453 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 18,521 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website