Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Close Brothers Limited trading as Close Brothers Motor Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A purchased a used seven-year-old car with 87,000 miles via conditional sale agreement with Close Brothers for approximately £10,000. On the day of collection, the engine management light illuminated and the dealer identified and repaired a dirty crankshaft position sensor. Mr A drove the car home after the repair. When the EML reappeared, Mr A provided written notice of rejection within 30 days. Close Brothers refused rejection, arguing the independent engineer's inspection found no faults. The ombudsman found that Mr A had consented to the initial repair by accepting the work and driving the car home, and that subsequent inspections provided insufficient evidence of a persistent fault to support rejection under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which provides a right to reject goods within 30 days if unsatisfactory quality is demonstrated. Although a fault was identified on the day of collection, Mr A's actions (accepting the repair and driving the car home) indicated consent to the repair rather than rejection. Under the CRA, once a consumer consents to a repair, the right to reject only remains if the fault persists after repair. The ombudsman gave significant weight to the independent engineer's report which found no faults, and concluded that the presence of warning lights alone, without corroborating evidence of an underlying fault, was insufficient to demonstrate unsatisfactory quality. The ombudsman noted that intermittent faults are difficult to evidence but must be based on balance of probabilities.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website