Not upheld: satisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement; customer service handling complaint against Zopa Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs H purchased a used car via hire purchase with Zopa in April 2024 for £5,506. Approximately 12 months later, after driving a further 6,700 miles, she experienced issues including a cracked wet belt and engine misfire. Two independent reports provided conflicting expert opinions on whether the timing belt was nearing replacement at supply, with Report B (specific to the car) concluding the manufacturer's interval of 10 years or 112,000 miles had not been reached. The ombudsman found the faults were not present or developing at supply because they presented much later than expected and the timing belt, as a wear and tear item, lasted as long as expected. Zopa's £150 compensation for customer service failures was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods supplied under consumer credit contracts to be of satisfactory quality. Satisfactory quality is assessed considering relevant factors including the car's age, price, mileage, and description. For a used car priced at £5,500 with 37,000 miles, a reasonable person would not expect it to be in the same condition as a new car. While faults were found (wet belt and engine misfire), the ombudsman was not persuaded they were present or developing at the point of supply because: (1) the faults presented nearly 12 months and 6,700 miles after supply, much later than would be expected if present at supply; (2) Report B, which is specific to Mrs H's car, concluded the timing belt interval was 10 years or 112,000 miles, neither of which had been reached at supply; (3) the timing belt is a wear and tear item that lasted as long as expected; and (4) there was no requirement for Zopa to supply the car with a new timing belt. The ombudsman found Zopa's £150 compensation for customer service failures to be fair and reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website