Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6436836 of 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6436836 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Oodle Financial Services Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Oodle Financial Services Limited must: (1) Refund £1,188.56 paid to the agreement with 8% simple interest from date of payment to date of refund; (2) Pay £300 for alternative travel costs; (3) Pay £240 for vehicle inspections; (4) Pay £168 for service costs; (5) Pay £500 for distress and inconvenience caused. The £50 previously paid should form part of the overall distress award. If Oodle has already paid any of these amounts, it need not pay them again. |
Summary
Miss M purchased a used 11-year-old car via hire purchase agreement with Oodle in January 2025 for £6,749. The car developed infotainment and electrical faults within the first week, and the dealership failed to activate the warranty. Multiple garages confirmed significant faults and that the car had not been properly checked before sale. Miss M was without a properly working car for approximately one year while the complaint was processed, during which she received incorrect information from the broker and was told multiple times the issue would be resolved. The situation significantly affected her mental health. Oodle eventually accepted the car was not of satisfactory quality and unwound the agreement in November 2025, offering compensation totalling approximately £1,058 plus refunds. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Oodle's compensation inadequate and its customer service poor, and directed it to refund all payments (£1,188.56 plus 8% interest) plus £500 additional compensation for distress.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman accepted that the car was not of satisfactory quality and the agreement should be unwound (not in dispute). The key issue was whether compensation offered was adequate. The ombudsman rejected Oodle's approach of calculating a 'notional' amount Miss M should have paid and deducting this from refunds, finding this illogical when the contract was being unwound. The ombudsman found that Oodle's poor customer service was a main contributory factor to Miss M's distress. Although not all problems were directly caused by Oodle, the root cause was the unsatisfactory quality car, for which Oodle is responsible. The ombudsman found that Oodle should have done far more to resolve the situation and that the £50 compensation offered was insufficient given the almost year-long ordeal, the mental health impact, and Oodle's awareness of the ongoing problems. Additional compensation of £500 for distress was warranted.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Oodle Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 465 | 36% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website