Not upheld: quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement; alleged misrepresentation regarding dashcam subscription complaint against BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K purchased a second-hand car (over 5 years old, 45,000 miles) on hire purchase from BMWFS in February 2024. He complained in December 2024 about the car going into limp mode shortly after purchase, cosmetic damage, brake issues, and various dealer-related matters including a dashcam subscription requiring monthly fees. BMWFS responded that repairs had been completed to approved used standards and that it was not responsible for dealer-related matters. The ombudsman found that while the initial limp mode defect and cosmetic condition rendered the car of unsatisfactory quality, repair was a reasonable remedy and was completed. Subsequent brake wear and remaining cosmetic issues were considered normal wear and tear for a car of that age and mileage. The ombudsman declined to award additional compensation, noting Mr K had already received approximately £360 from the dealer and that claimed losses lacked sufficient evidence. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality. For a second-hand car over 5 years old with 45,000 miles, a reasonable person would expect some wear and tear and cosmetic defects. While the initial limp mode issue and pre-repair cosmetic condition rendered the car of unsatisfactory quality, repair is a reasonable remedy under the CRA. The ombudsman found that after repairs, the remaining cosmetic issues were reasonable wear and tear for a car of that age and mileage. Brake wear after 7,000 additional miles was considered normal consumable maintenance, not an inherent defect. The ombudsman declined to award additional compensation for inconvenience and financial loss, noting Mr K had already received approximately £360 from the dealer and that some claimed losses (such as taxi costs) lacked persuasive evidence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website