Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Zopa Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that a used car acquired under a hire purchase agreement with Zopa was not of satisfactory quality after faults with the fuel pressure sensor and wiring looms emerged five months after purchase. Zopa arranged an independent inspection which concluded the faults would not have been present or developing at the point of supply, considering the mileage travelled. The ombudsman found the independent inspection to be persuasive evidence and concluded that for a nine-year-old car with 78,300 miles, the requirement for repairs after five months was attributable to normal wear and tear rather than pre-existing defects. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which presumes goods did not conform to contract if faults are found within six months of supply, placing the burden on the supplier to prove otherwise. The independent inspection report was found to be the most persuasive evidence, concluding the faults would not have been present or developing at supply. Given the car was nine years old with 78,300 miles, a reasonable person would expect lower standards than a newer car and would anticipate repairs sooner. The requirement for repairs after five months and 6,500 miles of use was attributed to normal wear and tear rather than pre-existing defects.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website