Partially upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Zopa Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6387077 of 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Zopa Bank Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6387077 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Zopa Bank Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Refund all payments made between 3 July 2024 and 17 October 2024 when the car was off the road; refund repair costs of £952.12 plus VAT; pay 8% simple interest per year on all refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; pay £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. Zopa may apply refunds towards any arrears. |
Summary
Mr F purchased a used car with approximately 99,000 miles via hire purchase with Zopa in May 2024. The car suffered its first breakdown in July 2024 (61 days later) with multiple related faults to the clutch system and flywheel, requiring £952.12 out-of-pocket repair costs after warranty coverage. The car broke down again catastrophically in December 2024 with engine failure. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, finding the first breakdown indicated the car lacked satisfactory quality and reasonable durability, but rejecting the claim regarding the engine failure due to inconclusive technical evidence. Zopa was ordered to refund repair costs, payments during the repair period, interest, and £100 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test, finding it more likely that the multiple faults in the first breakdown were linked and related to one failure event rather than separate wear and tear issues. The ombudsman found the independent inspection report regarding the second breakdown to be inconclusive and contradictory, with no clear diagnosis of why the engine failed or rationale supporting the conclusion that the fault was not present at point of sale. The ombudsman noted that while a manufacturing defect may not show itself immediately, it would be present or developing at point of supply. However, without a proper diagnosis, the ombudsman could not establish this on balance of probabilities for the engine failure.
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