Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6384248 of 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6384248 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend must: (1) End the agreement as of 1 July 2025, meaning Miss O is not liable for any monthly payments due or made after this date; (2) Retain payments made until the end of June 2025 and refund anything paid after this date, including any fees or charges, with any outstanding balance cancelled; (3) Pay 8% simple yearly interest on refunded amounts calculated from when Miss O made the payments to the date of refund; (4) Remove any incorrect adverse information recorded with credit reference agencies in respect of the agreement; (5) Pay £200 for distress and inconvenience caused; (6) Reimburse Miss O for any inspection report costs she incurred. |
Summary
Miss O purchased a used car under a hire purchase agreement with Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend in May 2025 for £4,500. Within two days, she reported serious issues and returned the vehicle to the dealership for repairs. After the vehicle was returned to her, the issues persisted and new problems emerged. Miss O obtained an inspection report detailing faults with the engine, radiator fan, clutch, and internal mirror. Although Lendable Ltd provided a diagnostic report suggesting the clutch was functioning properly, they failed to address the other identified faults or provide documentation from the dealership regarding repair attempts. The ombudsman found the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality at the time of supply and upheld the complaint, ordering the agreement to be ended as of 1 July 2025 with refunds of subsequent payments, £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and removal of adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods supplied must be of satisfactory quality. For a used car with 71,021 miles and under ten years old, a reasonable person would expect some wear and tear, but the vehicle should still be fit for purpose. While the detailed diagnostic report persuaded the ombudsman that there was likely no clutch fault, the evidence from Miss O's inspection report, photographs showing warning lights, the missing internal mirror at the next MOT, and the lack of any documentation from AL disputing these issues led to the conclusion that the vehicle had faults with the engine, radiator fan, and internal mirror. These faults made the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply. Given that repair attempts had already been made and further time had passed, rejection of the vehicle was the appropriate remedy under the CRA.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend, all decisions | 15 | 33% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website