Oodle Financial Services Limited · DRN-6236935

The complaint Mr S complains that a car acquired under a hire purchase agreement with Oodle Financial Services Limited trading as Oodle Car Finance (“Oodle”) wasn’t of satisfactory quality when it was supplied to him. He wants to reject the car. What happened Both parties are familiar with the background of this complaint so I will only summarise what happened briefly here. In December 2021, Mr S entered into an agreement to acquire a used car. The car was supplied by a dealership (W) and Mr S used a credit broker to source a finance agreement for him. No deposit was paid, with the total purchase balance being provided under a hire purchase agreement with Oodle. The car was approximately two years old and had covered approximately 7,500 miles when the agreement started. The agreement was for 60 months, with 60 monthly repayments of £620.25. The cash price of the car was £28,995. In April 2022, Mr S got in contact with W as the air-conditioning in the car wasn’t working. He has said he got in contact with Oodle at this time too. W arranged for the ECU to be replaced under warranty, although the work couldn’t be completed until July 2022. However, the air-conditioning in the car continued to fail to work. Mr S took the car back to W in October 2023, where it was recommended that the ECU should be replaced again. But the air-conditioning continued to fail. Mr S complained to Oodle in August 2024. He said the air-conditioning hadn’t worked since he’d been supplied with the car, and it was uncomfortable to drive in the summer months. He wanted to reject the car. At this stage. Oodle didn’t uphold Mr S’s complaint as they said he hadn’t provided any independent evidence to show the fault with the air-conditioning had been present or developing at the point of supply. Mr S arranged for an independent inspection to be done. This was carried out in November 2024. The inspection report confirmed the air-conditioning wasn’t working, and it confirmed sight of another job card from W in April 2024, which again suggested the ECU needed to be replaced. However, the report concluded that there was no evidence provided that suggested the fault would have been present at the point of supply. Because of this, Oodle sent Mr S another final response letter, and didn’t uphold his complaint. Unhappy with this, Mr S arranged for another independent inspection to take place. This inspection happened in July 2025. The expert concluded that the air-conditioning wasn’t working and had likely been faulty from the point of supply or shortly after. It also acknowledged that previous repair attempts had been made but hadn’t fixed the problem. Mr S brought his complaint to our service. Our investigator didn’t uphold it. He said he thought the car was of satisfactory quality when it was supplied to Mr S, so he wouldn’t be asking Oodle to do anything to assist.

-- 1 of 5 --

Mr S didn’t accept this. He said that the fault had been there from supply, he’d asked W to help and the fault was consistent with a defect in the car. As Mr S didn’t agree, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. Prior to writing this final decision, I communicated with both parties to explain my initial thoughts. In summary, I said: - The information confirmed the ECU had been replaced under warranty in July 2022. I shared this information with Oodle as it wasn’t clear if they had been supplied with it previously. - There was a job card from October 2023 that showed W had inspected the car again and confirmed the air-conditioning wasn’t working, and the ECU should be replaced. This job card was also shared with Oodle at this time. - One of the independent reports confirmed W had seen the car again in April 2024, as the air-conditioning still wasn’t working. They recommended replacing the ECU again. - The second independent report confirmed the fault with the air-conditioning would have been present at point of supply, or shortly after. - The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) explained that one opportunity to repair is allowed, and in this case I was satisfied the evidence confirmed at least one repair had been attempted to fix the air-conditioning. - As those repairs hadn’t worked and hadn’t brought the car back into conformity with the contract, Mr S should be allowed to reject it. - Oodle should end the agreement and make arrangements to take the car back, at no cost to Mr S. - Oodle should reimburse him for the two independent inspections he had arranged and paid for – subject to Mr S providing the invoices for those payments. - Oodle should also pay Mr S £350 for the significant inconvenience caused to him by being supplied with a car of unsatisfactory quality. Mr S responded and didn’t accept my suggested outcome. He said he would accept being refunded for half of the total monthly repayments he had made towards the agreement and confirmed the current mileage of the car was approximately 57,600. He also said he thought he should be awarded more compensation. Oodle also responded and accepted my suggested settlement in full. As Mr S hasn’t accepted, I’ve proceeded to issue this 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. When considering what is fair and reasonable, I’m required to take into account: relevant law and regulations, relevant regulatory rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice. I’ve summarised above the response I received from both parties as I want them to know that I’ve carefully considered all the points they made and the evidence provided. I don’t intend to address the same points again as in my initial communication with them. Instead, I’ve tried to concisely explain why the additional comments I’ve received since I issued my initial thoughts to them haven’t changed my mind.

-- 2 of 5 --

As the hire purchase agreement entered by Mr S is a regulated consumer credit agreement this service is able to consider complaints relating to it. Oodle are also the supplier of the goods under this type of agreement and are responsible for a complaint about their quality. The CRA covers agreements like the one Mr S entered. Because Oodle supplied the car under a hire purchase agreement, there’s an implied term that it is of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. Cars are of satisfactory quality if they are of a standard that a reasonable person would find acceptable, taking into account factors such as – amongst other things – the age and mileage of the car and the price paid. The CRA also says that 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 and safety can be aspects of the quality of the goods. In Mr S’s case, the car was used and had covered approximately 7,500 miles when he acquired it. So, I’d have different expectations of it compared to a brand-new car. Having said that, the car’s condition should have met the standard a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, given its age, mileage, and price. The CRA explains that where goods are found not to have conformed to the contract within the first six months, it is presumed the goods did not conform to the contract at the point of supply. Unless the supplier, Oodle in this case, can prove otherwise. However, Mr S brought the problems with the car to Oodle’s attention in August 2024, almost three years after he’d been supplied with it. As this was outside of six months it was for Mr S to show any faults with the car had been present at the point of supply. I’m satisfied in this case that Mr S has shown that the fault with the air-conditioning, or the ECU, were first brought to W’s attention in April 2022 and the ECU was replaced under warranty in July 2022. The independent report in July 2025 also confirmed that the fault with the ECU was likely to have been present at the point of supply, or very shortly after Mr S acquired the car. I’ve also seen a job card from October 2023 that confirms W had investigated a further fault with the air-conditioning in the car and had recommended that the ECU was replaced. The independent inspection conducted in November 2024 also confirmed that a subsequent invoice from W dated April 2024 confirmed the air-conditioning unit wasn’t working, and Mr S had been advised to replace the ECU again. The CRA allows for one opportunity to repair the car, and I’m persuaded, from the evidence provided, that more than one attempt has taken place here. The car has been back to W on at least two occasions to investigate a fault with the air-conditioning unit, and each time it’s been decided that the ECU needed replacing. Mr S has said that he brought the fault with the air-conditioning unit to Oodle’s attention in 2022, although I haven’t seen any evidence from either party to confirm that. Oodle’s account notes show Mr S first contacted them about the fault in August 2024. But I don’t think this has prejudiced Oodle’s position in this case. As I stated in my communication to both parties, I’m satisfied that Oodle would have referred Mr S back to W had he notified them of the faults sooner, as W were the supplying dealer and the provider of the warranty. And as the car has had more than one repair attempt, I’m satisfied that it wasn’t of satisfactory quality when it was supplied to Mr S. The CRA sets out that (outside the first 30 days) if the car isn’t of satisfactory quality, there’s been a repair attempt, and the car still doesn’t conform to the contract, Mr S should be able to reject it. Oodle should take the car back without charging Mr S for collection and end the agreement, ensuring no more monthly payments are taken from him.

-- 3 of 5 --

The CRA explains that a deduction can be made from any refund to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods since they were delivered. It doesn’t set out how to calculate fair usage and there’s no exact formula for me to use. There isn’t an industry standard mileage figure. My role is to decide cases quickly and informally – and I have to bear in mind Mr S has continued to use the car while he’s been in possession of it. I appreciate why Mr S might feel he should be refunded half of the total monthly repayments he's made, but I don’t think that would be reasonable. He has confirmed the current mileage of the car at approximately 57,600, meaning he has covered approximately 50,000 miles since being supplied with it. I’m satisfied Mr S has had full use of the car since being supplied with it so, in this case, I’m satisfied it’s fair for Oodle to retain all the monthly payments Mr S has made towards the agreement to reflect the use he’s had. Mr S has arranged and paid for two independent inspections to be done on the car to try and determine liability for the faults. Oodle should reimburse him the costs of those inspections, subject to Mr S providing them with paid invoices for both. Mr S has explained the impact having a car of unsatisfactory quality has had on him. It’s clearly been a difficult time for him, and it has required numerous trips and conversations with W and Oodle to try and sort the matter out. No amount of money can change what’s happened. But the compensation I’m awarding is in line with what’s awarded where the impact of the breach of contract has caused considerable distress, upset and worry – and/or significant inconvenience that needs a lot of extra effort to sort out. I’m awarding Mr S £350 to reflect the distress he’s been caused by being supplied with a car of unsatisfactory quality. I’d like to remind Mr S that he’s able to reject this decision is he believes he can achieve a better outcome by alternative means, such as through the courts. My final decision For the reasons above, I uphold this complaint. Oodle Financial Services Limited trading as Oodle Car Finance must: • End the finance agreement ensuring Mr S is not liable for monthly repayments after the point of collection (they should refund Mr S any overpayment for these if applicable). • Take the car back (if this has not been done already) without charging Mr S for collection. • Refund Mr S the cost of two independent reports arranged by him (subject to Mr S providing Oodle with proof of payment for these). • Pay 8% interest on the refunded amounts, from the date of payment until the date of settlement.* • Pay Mr S £350 compensation to reflect the upset caused to him by being supplied with a car of unsatisfactory quality. • Remove any adverse information, in relation to this agreement, from Mr S’s credit file (if applicable). *If Oodle Financial Services Limited trading as Oodle Car Finance consider they’re required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, they should tell Mr S how much they’ve taken off. They should also give him a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one, so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate.

-- 4 of 5 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Kevin Parmenter Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --