Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against CA Auto Finance Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6446713 of 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against CA Auto Finance Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6446713 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | CA Auto Finance Ltd |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | CA Auto Finance Ltd must: (1) end the finance agreement at no cost to Mrs M; (2) take the vehicle back without charging for collection; (3) refund the advanced payment of £63,995; (4) pay a refund of rentals from 26 June 2025 to present for loss of use; (5) refund £2,845 for additional expenses (solar panel, inverter, towbar, battery); (6) refund £980.25 for collection and storage costs; (7) pay simple interest using time-weighted average Bank of England base rate + 1 percentage point on all refunded amounts from date of payment to date of settlement; (8) pay £350 for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Mrs M purchased a new camper van from CA Auto Finance Ltd under a hire purchase agreement on 16 September 2024 for £73,995. She subsequently discovered three defects: a faulty rear camera producing unclear images, a non-functional foot heater designed for left-hand drive, and a gearbox failure nine months after supply. The rear camera and foot heater issues were raised within six months of supply, placing the burden on CA Auto to prove the faults were not present at supply. CA Auto failed to provide sufficient evidence to discharge this burden. Mrs M rejected the vehicle on 22 July 2025 and incurred additional costs for upgrades and storage. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, and ordered CA Auto to refund the full advanced payment of £63,995, end the finance agreement, take back the vehicle, and reimburse all additional costs plus £350 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods supplied under a consumer credit agreement must be of satisfactory quality. For a new vehicle, a reasonable person would expect higher quality standards and freedom from defects. The rear camera and foot heater issues were raised within six months of supply, placing the burden on CA Auto to prove the faults were not present at supply. CA Auto failed to provide sufficient evidence to discharge this burden. The rear camera images were objectively unclear, and the foot heater was confirmed by an independent garage to be non-functional due to design incompatibility. The gearbox failure nine months after supply further demonstrated the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality in terms of durability. Mrs M's additional costs were reasonably incurred in reliance on the vehicle being fit for purpose.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| CA Auto Finance Ltd, all decisions | 2 | 50% |
| 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