Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Zopa Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6380868 of 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Zopa Bank Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6380868 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Zopa Bank Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Zopa Bank Limited must: (1) cancel the hire purchase agreement with nothing further to pay; (2) collect the car at no further cost to Mr T; (3) pay Mr T £6,605 (£7,442 less £837); (4) pay simple interest at 8% per annum on the refunded amount from 1 April 2025 until settlement; (5) pay £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (6) remove any information from Mr T's credit file. |
Summary
Mr T purchased a second-hand car in October 2022 using a hire purchase agreement with Zopa Bank Limited. In April/May 2025, when attempting to sell the car, he discovered it had been stolen and vandalised—information he was not aware of at purchase. The dealer had conducted an HPI check that failed to reveal this material information. Mr T complained to Zopa, which refused to allow him to reject the car, leading to this FOS complaint. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the dealer's failure to disclose the car's history constituted a misleading omission for which Zopa is liable under consumer credit law. The ombudsman directed Zopa to cancel the agreement, collect the car, and pay Mr T £6,605 plus interest and £300 compensation, calculated to restore him to the position he would have been in had he sold the car at fair market value in spring 2025.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the dealer failed to disclose material information about the car's history (theft and vandalism), constituting a misleading omission under consumer law. Although the omission appeared innocent, the dealer had responsibility as the supplier to ensure customers were not misled. The ombudsman rejected arguments that the dealer had no obligation to conduct further checks beyond the HPI check, finding that the dealer's checks were insufficient given the significance of the information that was missed. For redress, the ombudsman determined that Mr T should be put back in the position he would have been had he sold the car in spring 2025 at fair market value (£13,416), less what he owed to Zopa (£5,974), resulting in a net position of £7,442. A deduction of £837 was applied for Mr T's use of the car since spring 2025, calculated as half the depreciation over the last year (£1,674). The ombudsman rejected Zopa's suggested per-mile deduction as inappropriate, noting Mr T had effectively paid for most miles through monthly payments.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Zopa Bank Limited, all decisions | 574 | 26% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website