Partially upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited trading as ALPHERA Financial Services

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K purchased a used vehicle via hire purchase with AFS in July 2024 for £21,000. He immediately reported a central locking defect affecting the sliding doors and was referred to the manufacturer's warranty. While awaiting warranty repair, Mr K paid £477.80 to add deadlocks for security. The vehicle was subsequently struck by a coach and underwent a three-month repair period during which the repairer incorrectly jump-started the vehicle, causing electrical damage. The vehicle later developed battery and electrical issues, eventually becoming inoperable in February 2025, leading Mr K to sell it at a loss. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding the door locking issue made the vehicle unsatisfactory quality at point of sale, but rejected claims for battery and electrical faults as these resulted from post-sale events and repairer error, not manufacturing defects. AFS was ordered to reimburse the lock costs (£477.80) plus interest and pay £200 compensation for distress.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality at point of supply. Satisfactory quality is determined by what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking into account price, description, age, mileage, and durability. The ombudsman found evidence that the sliding door locking issue existed at point of sale based on prior work history and Mr K's immediate report. However, the ombudsman found no evidence that battery issues or electrical faults existed at point of sale. The battery problems appeared to stem from prolonged vehicle inactivity during the three-month repair period and potentially from the repairer's incorrect jump-starting procedure, not from a defect present at sale. The ombudsman concluded AFS should reimburse the reasonable cost of securing the doors and pay compensation for distress caused by the door defect, but rejected claims for battery replacement and other losses as these were not caused by AFS.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website