Upheld: faulty goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 1 complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6382663 of 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00. faulty goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 1 complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6382663 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | MotoNovo Finance Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | faulty goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 1 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | MotoNovo Finance Limited directed to: (1) Refund £1,900 deposit and £12,500 part exchange value; (2) Refund cost of repairs and investigations with supporting invoices (excluding tyres, windscreen wipers, and air conditioning); (3) Pay simple interest at 8% per annum from date of sale and invoice dates respectively; (4) Pay £400 compensation for inconvenience; (5) Remove any adverse credit file information relating to the hire purchase agreement. |
Summary
Miss A purchased a used car via hire purchase from MotoNovo in November 2024. The car had recurring starting problems that began on the day of purchase. Despite a warranty repair in December 2024 replacing the battery, the problems persisted. In March 2025, an independent inspection found fault codes related to fuel system issues, and subsequent repairs identified a faulty starter motor and poor electrical connections. MotoNovo rejected Miss A's complaint, claiming it could not identify a fault. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was faulty at sale and that MotoNovo's single repair attempt had failed to resolve the issue, entitling Miss A to reject the car and receive a full refund plus compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman agreed that the recurring symptoms (struggling to start when fully fueled, fault codes P0171 and P0172) were consistent with the original problem and not a new unrelated issue. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the firm was entitled to one repair attempt. Since the December repair did not resolve the issue and the March inspection/subsequent repairs identified the same underlying fault (starter motor and fuel system issues), Miss A was entitled to reject the car after the first repair failed. The component failures indicated the car was faulty at the time of sale, as these parts should have had a longer lifespan than 6.5 years.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| MotoNovo Finance Limited, all decisions | 555 | 45% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 18,521 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website