Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6456474 of 2026-06-26T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6456474 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-26T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | 1. End the personal contract purchase agreement; 2. Collect the car without charging for collection; 3. Keep all monthly repayments except 10% of repayments from March 2025 until collection; 4. Deduct £0.16 per mile for excess mileage over 15,000 annual limit on pro-rata basis; 5. Refund £985.91 car rental costs; 6. Refund £11,000 advance payment; 7. Add 8% simple interest per year to all refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; 8. Pay £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience; 9. Remove adverse credit file information and mark agreement as settled in full (not voluntary termination). |
Summary
Mr A purchased a nearly-new car (1 year old, 1,159 miles, £95,800) under a personal contract purchase agreement with CA Auto Finance in February 2025. The car developed multiple serious faults including water ingress, electrical issues, suspension problems, and trim/seal misalignments, requiring numerous repair visits between March 2025 and April 2026. Mr A requested rejection after initial repairs failed, but CA Auto refused and the dealership continued attempting repairs. Mr A continued driving the car as he needed transport and was not permitted to reject it, eventually covering over 32,000 miles. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was of unsatisfactory quality when supplied and that Mr A was entitled to reject it. CA Auto was directed to end the agreement, collect the car, refund the advance payment and rental costs, pay compensation, and remove adverse credit information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the car was of unsatisfactory quality when supplied, considering its age (approximately 1 year old), low mileage (1,159 miles), high price (£95,800), and the nature and frequency of faults that arose shortly after supply. A reasonable person would have high expectations of such a nearly-new, expensive vehicle and would not expect significant issues so soon. Although Mr A continued to drive the car and covered significant mileage, this was because CA Auto and the dealership refused to allow him to exercise his right to rejection and he needed transport. The ombudsman considered it fair and reasonable to allow rejection given the circumstances, the multiple failed repair attempts, and the inconvenience caused. Mr A was entitled to reject under his final right to reject after repair had not been successful.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD, all decisions | 229 | 55% |
| 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