Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods; failure to repair defects complaint against Blue Motor Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E purchased a used eight-year-old car via hire purchase agreement with Blue Motor Finance Limited in April 2025. Within three weeks, he reported overheating warning light and clutch pedal issues. The supplying dealership repaired these in May 2025, providing a two-month/2,000-mile warranty and instructing Mr E to monitor the situation. The overheating problem recurred, and despite multiple opportunities to return the car to the dealership (when the warning light reappeared, after the failed August 2025 MOT, and after a subsequent thermostat repair), Mr E chose to continue driving the vehicle. The car broke down in December 2025 with a failed head gasket after approximately 2,400 miles of driving. Mr E complained seeking refunds for repairs and compensation for distress. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that while a fault likely existed at supply, Mr E's failure to return the car for further investigation when problems persisted meant he failed to mitigate damage, and the head gasket failure resulted from his continued use of the obviously defective vehicle.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that there was likely a fault with the car related to coolant temperature issues that manifested within three weeks of supply. However, the ombudsman found that the supplying dealership took reasonable steps to repair the car in May 2025 and provided a warranty and instructions to monitor the situation. The ombudsman concluded that Mr E failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate damage by not returning the car to the dealership when the problem recurred. Specifically, Mr E had multiple opportunities to contact the dealership (when the warning light recurred, after the failed MOT, and when the warning light reappeared after the thermostat repair) but instead chose to continue driving the car. The ombudsman found that had Mr E returned the car for further investigation, the supplying dealership would have had the opportunity to fix the problem and the head gasket failure would not have occurred. The independent inspector's conclusion that the head gasket failure was caused by Mr E's continued use of the obviously defective car supported this reasoning.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website