BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited · DRN-5999109

The complaint Mr H complains that a car supplied to him under a hire purchase agreement with BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited is of unsatisfactory quality. What happened In February 2025, Mr H took delivery of a used car acquired when he entered into a hire purchase agreement with BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited (BMWFS). The car was just under eight years old being, with the mileage listed as 41,825 on the sales invoice. The cash price of the car was £21,499.00 with an advance payment of £4,499.00 being paid. The total payable on the agreement was £24,096.68, payable by 36 repayments of £544.38. Mr H explained he noticed an issue with the sunroof of his vehicle very soon after it being delivered. This was looked at and worked on by the dealership, with Mr H’s car being returned to him after this work was carried out. Sometime after, Mr H raised the issue with his sunroof again alongside an issue with the paintwork on his vehicle. Mr H complained about these issues to BMWFS. In its final response BMWFS partially upheld Mr H’s complaint. It stated it upheld the sunroof issue, and Mr H would need to book the vehicle in with a manufacturer linked retailer to have the necessary work carried out. It did not uphold the issue with the paintwork and suggested it could be due to wear and tear or power hose or stone damage. Mr H was unhappy with the outcome, and brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service where it was passed to one of our investigators. The investigator upheld the complaint. They explained the car was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied in relation to the sunroof, and that repairs had failed meaning Mr H now had the right to reject the vehicle. BMWFS did not agree with the outcome, and Mr H wanted to keep the car but have the sunroof replaced instead of repaired, alongside further redress. As an agreement hasn’t been reached, I’ve been asked to review the complaint to make 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. Having done so, I’ve arrived at broadly the same outcome as the investigator and for broadly the same reasons. I’ll explain why below. I’ve read and considered the whole file, summarising the complaint above, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it but because I don’t

-- 1 of 4 --

think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. Mr H acquired a car under a hire purchase agreement. Entering into consumer credit contracts like this is a regulated activity, so I’m satisfied we can consider Mr H’s complaint about BMWFS. BMWFS is also the supplier of the goods under this type of agreement meaning they are responsible for a complaint about the supply of the car and its quality. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) is relevant in this case. It says that under a contract to supply goods, there is an implied term that “the quality of the goods is satisfactory, fit for purpose and as described”. To be considered as satisfactory, the CRA says the goods need to meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, considering any description of the goods, the price and all the other relevant circumstances. So, it seems likely that in a case involving a car, the other relevant circumstances a court would consider might include things like the age and mileage at the time of sale and the vehicle’s history. In this case, Mr H acquired a car that was just under eight years old and had travelled around 41,825 miles. As this was a used car with this mileage and age, it’s reasonable to expect parts may already have suffered more wear and tear when compared to a new car or one that is less travelled. There’s a greater risk this car might need repair and/or maintenance sooner than a car which wasn’t as road-worn. I’ve reviewed the available evidence about the issues Mr H experienced with the car. Based on what I’ve seen, I’m satisfied that there were faults with the car. I say this because I’ve seen an invoice for work carried out on the sunroof and I’ve seen videos showing the sunroof appearing not to close. BMWFS also upheld the sunroof issue in its final response. Having considered the car had a fault, I’ve considered whether it was of satisfactory quality at the time of supply. Firstly, I can see Mr H raised the issue with the sunroof very early on after receiving the vehicle. This was taken back in for work to be carried out. BMWFS have said this was a clean and recalibration and is minor cosmetic work. Once the vehicle was returned to Mr H, the issue appeared to have been resolved. Around four months later Mr H noticed the issues with the sunroof had returned and were causing him further concern. I’ve seen video evidence of the sunroof appearing not to close. Mr H has said it looked as though it was on tilt mode, and there is mention of the sunroof sitting a few millimetres raised. Mr H has added how this affected the vehicle during this time. The information and evidence available persuades me there was an issue with the vehicle very early on, that required work carrying out. Whether this was recalibration and cleaning or something more, it did make the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality when it was supplied, and required work to restore the vehicle to satisfactory quality. Mr H then received the vehicle back and around four months later noticed further issues. The information and evidence I’ve seen persuades me that there were further issues with the sunroof, meaning that the repairs or work previously carried out to fix the issue had failed. This then means the vehicle remained of unsatisfactory quality. I’m unable to agree from the information available that the issue is purely cosmetic. I have no evidence that the paintwork was an issue present or developing at the point of sale. This appears to have become an issue further down the line after Mr H had been able to travel what I’d consider to be above average mileage in the time he had the vehicle. There are a number of factors that could have caused the issue, but I have nothing that shows it was present or developing at the point of sale.

-- 2 of 4 --

Putting things right As I’ve concluded that the car was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied in relation to the sunroof issues, I think it’s reasonable that BMWFS should put things right. In this case, I do think it’s reasonable that BMWFS had one chance to repair the issues with the vehicle, but that the repairs have failed to restore the vehicle to satisfactory quality as the sunroof has further issues. This means that Mr H now has the right to reject the vehicle. Mr H initially wanted to reject the vehicle when he brought the complaint to the service but has since suggested he wants to avoid that possibility and instead have the sunroof replaced as the remedy. I am unable to direct BMWFS to fully replace the sunroof as a resolution, because I cannot be certain that a full replacement of the sunroof is either necessary, or will fully resolve the issue. Although I acknowledge why Mr H has asked for this. So, it is fair for Mr H to now reject the vehicle. This means BMWFS must end the agreement with nothing further to pay in relation to the monthly payments, arrange to collect the vehicle at no cost to Mr H and reimburse him his deposit payment. However, BMWFS are entitled to retain any part of the deposit made up of dealer contributions if applicable. I then considered if any part of the payments should be due back to Mr H. I agree with the investigator that he will have suffered impaired usage and a loss of enjoyment from the issue. I agree that a 10% refund of monthly payments made from 4 February 2025 to 17 February 2025 and from 6 June 2025 to the date of settlement is fair in this case. Mr H has explained the impact the issues had on his enjoyment of the car and I’m persuaded this is fair. There is no reimbursement due for the time between the dates mentioned, as there was no reported or confirmed fault causing Mr H issues during these times. I also agree with the investigator that Mr H has suffered distress and inconvenience due to being supplied a car of unsatisfactory quality. Mr H explained the stress and impact this had on him, with the issues and trying to have them resolved affecting his mental heath and mood. Having considered the overall impact on Mr H, I’m persuaded that it is fair BMWFS should pay Mr H £250 to reflect this. As I have explained above, I’m unable to direct the settlement that Mr H would like, for the reasons I’ve explained. I appreciate Mr H doesn’t think rejection is fair, however I’m persuaded the rejection of the vehicle, repaying the deposit and a portion of some monthly payments is a fair way to redress this situation. Mr H has had use of the vehicle, and it is fair that he pays for this usage. Mr H is under no obligation to accept the final decision, and it may be that as he wants to keep the vehicle, he could discuss these options with BMWFS separately to come to a settlement they both agree on, but I have explained why I cannot direct the settlement that Mr H would like in this case and must direct what is a fair and reasonable outcome under the circumstances. My final decision For the reasons explained, my final decision is I uphold Mr H’s complaint and instruct BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited must follow my directions above to do the following: • End the agreement as outlined above. • Collect the vehicle at no cost to Mr H.

-- 3 of 4 --

• Refund the deposit paid towards the agreement as outlined above. • Pay a refund of some payments made to the agreement as outlined above. • Pay 8% simple yearly interest* on the above, to be calculated from when Mr H made the payments to the date of the refund. • Pay Mr H a total of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused as outlined above. • Remove any incorrect adverse information recorded about the agreement with credit reference agencies if applicable. *HM Revenue & Customs requires BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited to deduct tax from the interest amount. BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited should give Mr H a certificate showing how much tax it has deducted If he asks for one. Mr H can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Jack Evans Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --