Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a nine-year-old used car with 118,200 miles under a conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn for £7,079 in February 2025. Shortly after purchase, the alternator failed and was repaired by the supplying dealership. Mr B subsequently reported additional faults including start-stop system malfunction and pedestrian protection system errors. When the dealership offered to inspect and repair the vehicle under warranty, Mr B declined to return it, preferring local repairs instead. Mr B later obtained a diagnostic report showing fault codes and a pedestrian protection system warning light, claiming the vehicle was unsafe and unfit for road use. The ombudsman found that the alternator failure was consistent with normal wear and tear for a vehicle of that age and mileage, that there was no conclusive evidence the repairs were unsuccessful, and that the other reported faults lacked clear evidence of being present at the point of supply. 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 used cars, satisfactory quality is assessed considering age, mileage, and price paid. The ombudsman found that: (1) the alternator failure was consistent with normal wear and tear for a nine-year-old vehicle (alternators typically last 7-10 years or 80,000-150,000 miles); (2) there was no conclusive evidence that repairs were unsuccessful; (3) the diagnostic report was unclear and fault codes do not necessarily indicate active faults; (4) the pedestrian protection system warning, while concerning, did not conclusively demonstrate an unsafe vehicle or a fault present at supply. The ombudsman noted that Mr B's refusal to return the vehicle for inspection prevented Moneybarn from properly investigating the issues.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website