Veste

Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6446735 of 2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6446735
Decision date2026-06-23T00:00:00+00:00
FirmBMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED
ProductMotor finance (PCP / HP)
Claim typeGoods and services under S75
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyBMWFS must: (1) treat the agreement as ended with nothing further to pay; (2) collect the vehicle at no cost to Mr K; (3) refund the advance payment of £7,981.00 in full; (4) refund all monthly payments made after 11 February 2026 to settlement date, minus any already refunded payments and minus the period of hire car provision (approximately 42 days); (5) cover the invoice cost of £545.27 for vehicle removal; (6) pay 8% simple yearly interest on refunded amounts from payment date to settlement; (7) pay £500 for distress and inconvenience; (8) remove adverse information from Mr K's credit file relating to the agreement.

Summary

Mr K purchased a used car via hire purchase agreement with BMWFS in March 2023 for £72,500. The vehicle suffered major mechanical failures including engine fire damage in June 2024 and suspension failure in August 2025 at 49,865 miles. BMWFS initially rejected the complaint but later offered to allow vehicle rejection and provide refunds. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality due to lack of durability, as the suspension system failed unreasonably early. BMWFS was ordered to end the agreement, refund payments for periods of non-use, refund the advance payment, pay interest and £500 compensation, and remove adverse credit information.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, particularly regarding durability. Although the vehicle was used and had some wear expected, the suspension system failed at 49,865 miles, which is unreasonably early for a vehicle of this type. A reasonable consumer would expect the vehicle to last significantly longer without such major failures. The ombudsman rejected BMWFS's argument that the failure occurred too long after purchase, finding that the vehicle's lack of durability meant it failed to meet the satisfactory quality standard under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The ombudsman also noted that while misrepresentation was alleged, the satisfactory quality finding was sufficient to uphold the complaint without deciding the misrepresentation issue.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED, all decisions1,46346%
Goods and services under S75, all decisions19,87236%
Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions19,84038%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website