Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Zopa Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs B purchased a used car via hire purchase agreement with Zopa in July 2024. Approximately 12 months later, a health check identified severe corrosion to the front subframe, which subsequently collapsed. Mrs B incurred £2,622.18 in repair costs and sought reimbursement, claiming the car was of unsatisfactory quality at supply. Two independent engineers provided conflicting reports on whether the corrosion was present at supply or developed during Mrs B's ownership. The ombudsman found that while some corrosion was likely present, it did not make the car unsatisfactory given its age (8.5 years) and the expected lifespan of the subframe (7-10 years), particularly considering the coastal environmental factors that accelerate corrosion. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality at supply. The ombudsman found that while some corrosion was likely present when the car was supplied, this did not make it unsatisfactory given the car's age (8.5 years), the expected lifespan of the subframe (7-10 years), and the absence of any MOT failures or advisories for corrosion. The ombudsman rejected the second engineer's theory that the damage was caused during the health check, finding the hole to be old damage based on colour and patina analysis. The ombudsman concluded the subframe failure was due to normal wear and tear accelerated by environmental factors (coastal salt exposure), not a defect present at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website