Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Tandem Motor Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D purchased a 9-year-old used car with 122,000 miles via hire purchase from Tandem Motor Finance in February 2025. After discovering various faults the day after delivery, he complained to Tandem in early March 2025. Rather than waiting for Tandem's independent engineer inspection (arranged for 20 March 2025), Mr D obtained repairs at a main dealer costing approximately £2,750. Tandem offered £1,250 as settlement. The ombudsman rejected Mr D's complaint, finding it unreasonable for him to arrange expensive main dealer repairs before allowing Tandem to inspect the car, and determining that many issues were wear and tear on an older, high-mileage vehicle. The ombudsman upheld Tandem's £1,250 offer as fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality. However, the ombudsman found that Mr D had the right to reject the car within 14 days under distance selling regulations but chose not to do so, thereby accepting it in the condition supplied. The ombudsman determined it was unreasonable for Mr D to arrange repairs at an expensive main dealer before allowing Tandem to inspect the car and arrange their own repairs. The ombudsman noted that most issues were either wear and tear on a high-mileage, older vehicle, or developed after supply. The ombudsman rejected the investigator's view that repairs before the independent inspection should be refunded, finding that Mr D had not been prevented from using the car (having covered 2,000 miles) and that Tandem had responded swiftly to his complaint.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website