Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited trading as Oodle Car Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K acquired a vehicle through a hire purchase agreement with Oodle Financial Services Limited on 30 May 2025 for £10,990. Shortly after acquisition, he incurred £800 in repairs and subsequently raised concerns that the vehicle had been in a previous accident that was not disclosed, claiming this constituted misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015. An inspection on 29 September 2025 confirmed repairs had been undertaken but found no adverse history recorded on the vehicle database. The ombudsman found no evidence of misrepresentation, noting that Mr K had not asked about previous accidents, the dealer's checks identified no issues, and there was no evidence that any prior damage affected the vehicle's fitness for purpose. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while repairs had been undertaken to the vehicle, the inspection report confirmed no adverse history was recorded on the relevant database. The ombudsman noted that Mr K did not ask about previous accidents at the time of acquisition, no issues were identified through the dealer's checks, and Mr K's comment about being told the vehicle had been polished rather than respray did not alone constitute misrepresentation. The ombudsman considered that a four-year-old vehicle with 88,214 miles could reasonably have undergone some repairs, and even if it had been in a previous accident, there was no evidence that prior damage affected its fitness for purpose. The ombudsman also determined that the CRA did not apply as the vehicle was acquired mainly for business purposes, and that the complaint as formally raised to Oodle concerned the alleged accident misrepresentation rather than the general repair issues.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website