Partially upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD trading as FCA Automotive Services

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M purchased a car under a PCP agreement in March 2023, which developed water ingress issues and was returned to the dealer in September 2024. The car remained unrepaired for many months while Mrs M was provided with courtesy cars. FCA rejected the car, reimbursed the deposit, and offered £250 compensation. Mrs M complained that this did not adequately reflect the distress caused by the extended wait and impact on her work and family. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding that while FCA's rejection and deposit reimbursement were fair, the compensation was insufficient for the significant disruption lasting many months, and increased it to £650.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The car was not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which is not disputed. FCA's rejection of the car and reimbursement of the deposit were appropriate remedies. Mrs M was entitled to retain monthly payments as she received the benefit of like-for-like courtesy cars during the repair period. However, the original £250 compensation did not adequately reflect the significant distress and disruption caused by waiting many months for resolution. The situation falls within the FOS guidance band for awards of £300-£750, which applies where there is considerable distress and significant inconvenience lasting over many weeks or months.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website