Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6463282 of 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6463282 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Autolend must: (1) collect the car at no cost to Miss A; (2) end the finance agreement with no liability for rentals after collection; (3) refund all monthly rentals from 4 June 2025 onwards with 8% simple yearly interest; (4) refund the £1,000 advance payment with 8% simple yearly interest; (5) pay £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (6) remove negative information from Miss A's credit file. |
Summary
Miss A purchased a 12.5-year-old used car via hire purchase with Autolend in December 2024 for £5,289. The car broke down on 4 June 2025 with engine overheating and cooling system failure, requiring likely engine replacement. Autolend initially rejected Miss A's complaint, arguing she should provide an independent report. After FOS investigator involvement, an independent expert inspection was arranged in February 2026, which found coolant loss and engine seizure but concluded the fault would not have been present at supply. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car lacked durability due to premature engine failure after less than 60,000 miles, and that Autolend unreasonably delayed in arranging inspection. Miss A was entitled to reject the car, and Autolend was directed to collect it, refund all payments from the breakdown date, return the advance payment with interest, pay £300 compensation, and remove negative credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality, which includes durability. A reasonable person would expect a 12.5-year-old car with 52,150 miles to have wear and tear but not catastrophic engine failure within six months. The fault occurred within six months of supply, creating a presumption it was present at supply unless the trader proves otherwise. Although the expert stated the fault would not have been present at supply, the ombudsman found a durability problem: premature engine failure after less than 60,000 miles is unusual and indicates the car was not durable. The expert's conclusion was based on incomplete investigation (further workshop investigation was needed). Autolend unreasonably delayed in arranging inspection, only doing so after FOS involvement, which breached the requirement to repair within reasonable time without significant inconvenience. Therefore, the consumer is entitled to reject the car.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend, all decisions | 19 | 37% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,913 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,529 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website