BLUE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED · DRN-6210866

The complaint Mr O complains about the quality of a car supplied on finance by BLUE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED (‘BM’). What happened The parties are familiar with the background details of this complaint – so I will briefly summarise them here. It reflects my role resolving disputes with minimum formality. BM supplied Mr O with a second-hand car on hire purchase in October 2024. He says that shortly after this he had a sensor fault with the car. Then later he had gearbox problems which he describes as ‘judder’ accompanied by error codes. Mr O wants to reject the car. He says the matter has put him under a lot of strain and financial loss. He contacted BM around June 2025 to make a complaint and request to reject the car. BM would not accept liability for the issue based on the evidence it had at the time. It indicated that Mr O had not shown the car was faulty at point of sale, rather than suffering reasonable wear and tear. It offered to reconsider matters if he was able to get an independent expert inspection. Our investigator did not uphold the complaint and Mr O asked for an ombudsman to look at things for a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. While I might not comment on everything (only what I consider key) this is not meant as a discourtesy to either party – it reflects my role resolving disputes with minimum formality. In considering what is fair and reasonable, I need to have regard to the relevant law and regulations, regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and (where appropriate) what I consider having been good industry practice at the relevant time. The agreement in this case is a regulated consumer credit agreement. As such, this service can consider complaints relating to it. BM is also the supplier of the goods under this type of agreement, and responsible for a complaint about their quality. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is of particular relevance to this complaint. It says that under a contract to supply goods, there is an implied term that “the quality of the goods is satisfactory”. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says the quality of goods are satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory taking into account any description of the goods, the price and all the other relevant circumstances. So it seems

-- 1 of 3 --

likely that in a case involving a car, the other relevant circumstances a court would take into account might include things like the age and mileage at the time of sale and the vehicle’s history. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA from now on’) says the quality of the goods includes their general state and condition and other things like their fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety, and durability can be aspects of the quality of goods. BM supplied Mr O with a second-hand car that was over ten years old and had done around 66,000 miles at the point of supply. The dealer priced it at around £8,000 which is notably less than what a new or newer model with less mileage would cost. It is fair to say that in these circumstances (particularly noting the age of the car) a reasonable person would consider that the car had already suffered significant wear and tear – and was likely to require more maintenance and potentially costly repairs much sooner than you might see on a newer, less road worn model. And I can’t see evidence that the dealer described the car in such a way that would alter those expectations. I note Mr O says the car now has gearbox ‘judder’ and a lack of responsiveness which has meant he has had to stop driving it. I am sorry to hear that. However, it appears that a diagnostic was carried out on the car by a main dealer in June 2025 to investigate but no judder or fault was identified. Even if some judder or component failure were identified I note when Mr O raised this issue with BM the car was about eleven years old and had covered around 75,000 miles total. A reasonable person would expect that at this age and mileage a gearbox might not handle as well as a newer car and might exhibit component failure through reasonable wear and tear. So, while cars should be reasonably durable I can see why BM suggested the car was suffering from reasonably expected wear and tear here. There are also issues around user servicing, use and maintenance that need to be ruled out (and here I note Mr O had used the car significantly before escalating the current issues with the car). I acknowledge part of Mr O’s argument is that he had problems with the car almost straight away (which BM understands the dealer rectified). And he says these are linked to the gearbox issue he has now. I can see that at an early stage he contacted the dealer with a ‘System Fault’ error message appearing on the dash. I can see this same message appears in a more recent video where Mr O has driven the car up to around 78,000 miles. Although the car was old at the point of supply (and it would be reasonably expected that some things would need servicing and renewal), I don’t think a car sold with a major component fault (like a gearbox) would be reasonably expected. However, while the evidence does suggest there was a problem at the point of supply and potentially connected error codes showing more recently, it is still unclear if the car was sold with a major component fault as Mr O alleges. I say this noting he was able to continue to use the car for around 10,000 miles before escalating more recent issues related to the alleged gearbox judder in June 2025. And it appears he has used it since covering around 2,000 more miles. Had the early issues not been resolved it seems likely Mr O wouldn’t have continued driving the car or been able to drive it to this extent. And escalated matters to BM sooner. Further complicating matters here is the later diagnostic in June 2025 which failed to identify any gearbox issues, while Mr O has also suggested that some of the electrical errors with the car were addressed by a new battery or due to a sensor fault (often reasonable wear and tear related). I also note while Mr O has provided information to show he paid for some gearbox work around July 2025 – the nature of the work is unclear. There is also no persuasive evidence showing the gearbox was assessed as needing replacing as claimed.

-- 2 of 3 --

I am not conclusively saying BM did not supply him a car with a defective gearbox as Mr O alleges. But things are quite unclear here. And considering the extensive mileage Mr O has covered in the car to date while noting the overall age and mileage of the car when he identified the gearbox issues I don’t think it’s unreasonable that BM expected him to produce an expert report to show the car likely had major component failure at the point of sale here. It has offered to reconsider the matter if he does – which seems fair. I understand Mr O has pointed to lack of evidence of servicing on the gearbox. But unless the car was sold with a service history that showed certain work had been carried out – or claims about certain servicing were advertised I can’t fairly say that a lack of prior servicing would render the car of unsatisfactory quality in the circumstances either. I am sorry to hear how the issues with the car have impacted Mr O. But in the particular circumstances I am unable to reasonably conclude BM should have taken the car back or paid for repairs. Ultimately, I remind Mr O my role is an informal one. If he wishes he can consider taking this matter by a more formal dispute route such as court action. That is a matter for him to decide. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Mark Lancod Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --