Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods; complaint regarding missing software update complaint against Close Brothers Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr N purchased a five-year-old used car with 62,000 miles under a conditional sale agreement with Close Brothers in August 2023 for £11,450. In January 2026, approximately two years later and after the vehicle had covered a further 15,500 miles, Mr N complained of catastrophic engine failure and alleged the car was sold with an outstanding 2021 KSDS software update. The ombudsman found that the engine failure resulted from age-related wear and inadequate maintenance rather than an inherent fault present at supply, noting the vehicle had a partial service history and Mr N had missed services after purchase. The ombudsman concluded the missing software update would not have prevented the specific top-end engine failure that occurred and that the vehicle had provided a reasonable period of durable service before failure. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods supplied under a conditional sale agreement must be of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. For a used car, satisfactory quality is assessed considering its age, mileage, and price. The ombudsman found that the engine failure occurred approximately two years after purchase, with significant additional mileage (15,500 miles), making it unlikely the fault was present or developing at the point of supply. The KSDS software update was designed to detect connecting rod bearing wear (bottom-end engine issues), but the actual failure involved top-end engine issues (clogged oil control rings), so the software would not have prevented the failure. The ombudsman concluded that inadequate maintenance—both before and after Mr N's purchase—was a significant contributory factor to the engine failure. Given the vehicle's age (almost eight years old at failure), mileage (over 77,800 miles), and maintenance history, the vehicle provided a reasonable period of durable service before failure.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website