DRN-6277555

The complaint Mrs O complains that a car supplied under a hire purchase agreement by Zopa Bank Limited (‘Zopa’) wasn’t of satisfactory quality. Mrs O has been represented on this complaint. But, to keep things simple, I will only refer to Mrs O in my decision. What happened Around February 2025, Mrs O acquired a used car through a hire purchase agreement with Zopa. The car had a cash price of £12,495, was around eight years old and had covered around 101,293 miles at the point of supply. Shortly before the sale, on 4 February 2025, the selling dealer arranged an oil service. The following day, the car passed an MOT at broadly the same mileage. Within around 24 hours of having the car, on 18 February 2025, the car broke down and required recovery by a breakdown assistance company. That company recorded that there was an oil or fuel leak and the car was recovered to Mrs O's home. Mrs O contacted the supplying dealer to raise her concerns. The dealer arranged for repairs to be carried out. On 19 February 2025, a garage replaced a fuel leak-off pipe and a fuel return pipe. The following day, on 20 February 2025, the same garage replaced the car's battery. These repairs were covered by the dealer. Following these repairs, the car was returned to Mrs O and was used for a period of time. In May 2025, at around 103,106 miles, Mrs O says that the EML and an oil warning light illuminated. She said as the supplying dealer had ceased trading, she arranged for an oil and filter change to be carried out at her own expense. On 17 August 2025, at around 107,352 miles and around six months after purchase, the car suffered a further breakdown. A breakdown assistance company attended and recorded that the engine had seized, although the oil and coolant levels were noted to be within normal range. Mrs O contacted Zopa again and raised a complaint about the quality of the car. She said the car had not been of satisfactory quality when supplied and sought to reject it. Zopa arranged for the car to be inspected by an independent engineer in August 2025. The engineer confirmed that the engine had seized and identified fault codes and findings linked to oil pressure and internal engine components. The report concluded that the failure was most likely caused by abnormal oil pressure, linked to a piston cooling jet solenoid fault. It also said the defect was not present or developing at the point of supply. Zopa issued its final response on 23 September 2025. It said it didn't agree the car had been of unsatisfactory quality when supplied and didn't uphold the complaint.

-- 1 of 4 --

Mrs O remained unhappy with that outcome and brought her complaint to our service. She later explained she’d had the car repaired at a cost of £6,100. Our investigator looked into the complaint. She was satisfied there had been a fault with the car, given the engine failure. However, she didn't think the available evidence showed that the fault was present or developing at the point of supply. In particular, she relied on the independent report, which concluded the issue wasn't present at point of supply. Taking into account the car's age and mileage, and the sequence of events, our investigator didn't think the car had been of unsatisfactory quality when it was supplied. So, they didn't uphold the complaint. Mrs O didn't agree with that view. She says the breakdown within 24 hours of collection is a key factor and indicates the car was faulty when supplied. She also points to the warning lights in May 2025 and the subsequent engine failure in August 2025 as part of a developing issue that she believes must have been present at the point of supply. She disputes conclusions within the independent report. As the complaint couldn't be resolved following our investigator's view, it has been passed to me 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 don't think this complaint should be upheld. I'll explain why. I’d like to explain to both parties that I might not comment on every point raised nor every single piece of evidence. I want to reassure Mrs O and Zopa that I’ve carefully thought about all of the information provided on this case. But I’m going to focus my decision on what I consider to be the key facts and the crux of the complaint. This reflects the informal nature of our service. When considering what’s fair and reasonable, I take into account relevant law, guidance and regulations. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA’) is relevant to this complaint. This says, in summary, that under a contract to supply goods, the supplier – Zopa here – needed to make sure the goods were of ‘satisfactory quality’. Satisfactory quality is what a reasonable person would expect, taking into account any relevant factors. I’m satisfied a court would consider relevant factors, amongst others, to include the car’s age, price, mileage and description. The CRA also explains the durability of goods can be considered as part of satisfactory quality. So, in this case I’ll consider that the car was used, around eight years old and cost around £12,495. It had also covered over 100,000 miles. This means I think a reasonable person would not expect the car to be in the same condition as a newer, less road worn one. But I still think they would expect it to have been free of anything other than relatively minor defects and would expect trouble free motoring for at least a short time. What I need to consider in this case is whether I think Mrs O’s car was of satisfactory quality or not. The first thing to think about is whether Mrs O’s car developed faults. And I think it’s clear it did. I say this as shortly after supply, the car broke down within around 24 hours and required recovery by a breakdown assistance company. The attendance notes record:

-- 2 of 4 --

“Nature of breakdown: Oil/Fuel Leak, Non-Rep: R/S Repair not Feasible — Recovery to Home Address” The notes also confirm the car wasn't driveable at that point. Repairs were then carried out to the fuel system, including replacement of the fuel leak-off pipe and fuel return pipe. I think this is clear evidence that the car had a fault. I’ve also considered what Mrs O says happened in May 2025. But aside from the oil and filter change invoice, I haven’t seen any diagnostic investigation or persuasive evidence showing that a fault was identified at that time. It follows, I don’t think I can reasonably conclude that the car had a fault in May 2025. There was then a later and more serious issue. In August 2025, the engine failed and the breakdown information said: "Vehicle cut out found engine seized as its a Sunday customer unable to contact garage advised to call back for recovery when they have garage that will take vehicle. Engine Oil Level Ok. Coolant Level Ok." I’ve also seen supporting evidence from the independent inspection, which states: “In our opinion, the engine is evidently in a seized condition.” So, I’m satisfied that the car unfortunately suffered both an initial fault shortly after supply and a later, more serious fault affecting the engine. However, the presence of faults alone doesn't necessarily mean the car was of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply. So, I've then gone on to think about what this means in terms of its quality and considered each issue in turn. The first issue occurred within around 24 hours of collection. The breakdown information confirms the car wasn't driveable at that point. I’m satisfied that a fault of this nature, arising within around 24 hours of collection and rendering the car undrivable, means the car didn’t meet the standard a reasonable person would expect at the point of supply. The CRA explains Mrs O had a right for the car to be repaired. In this case, the evidence shows repairs were carried out, shortly afterwards, including replacement of the fuel leak-off pipe and fuel return pipe, and the car was returned to Mrs O. The dealership covered the cost of these repairs, and I haven't seen evidence that these repairs were unsuccessful or that this issue persisted. So, I'm satisfied Mrs O's rights under CRA were broadly met by the repair being carried out. Clearly the engine hadn’t failed at the point of supply as Mrs O wouldn’t have been able to drive the car. So, I’ve then gone on to consider whether the later engine failure is linked to the initial fault. The first issue shortly after supply related to an oil/fuel leak and following repair, I haven’t seen evidence that the problem persisted. The car was also then driven for several months and at the point the engine failed in August 2025, the car had covered around 6,000 miles since Mrs O was supplied it.

-- 3 of 4 --

I've considered the independent inspection carried out by IVIS. This said: “In our opinion, the engine is evidently in a seized condition. Based on the fault data present, it appears that the piston cooling jet solenoid has resulted in abnormal oil pressure, which results in a critical oil warning on the dash display on this vehicle type. If this is not attended to immediately, internal engine damage is seldom avoided. … The vehicle has also knowingly been driven on for a prolonged period of time with warning lamps illuminating, without a diagnosis, by the operator's own admission. The defect is not considered to have been developing at inception.” The independent report points to a different cause of failure from the earlier fault, linking it to oil pressure and internal engine components. Taking all of this into account, I don’t think the later engine failure is likely to be connected to the initial fault. The report suggests that continued use after warning lights appeared may have contributed to the damage. I've considered this carefully. However, I haven't seen clear evidence about how long any warning lights were present or what Mrs O understood about them at the time. So, I'm not making a finding that she knowingly continued to drive the car in a faulty condition. Mrs O has challenged the independent report. But in the absence of equally persuasive expert evidence, I consider it to be most reliable evidence available. I’ve considered what Mrs O suggested in that incorrect oil may have been used before the point of supply and that this contributed to the failure. However, I haven't seen evidence showing this was the case. I've also considered durability. While the engine failed within six months, Mrs O had covered around 6,000 miles in the car, and at the point of failure it was just under eight years old and had covered a total of 107,352 miles. Considering this, I’m satisfied a reasonable person would’ve considered the car durable. I want to reassure Mrs O that I’ve carefully thought about everything else she said. But, considering all of the information, I'm not persuaded that the later engine failure was present or developing at the point of supply, or that it was linked to the initial fault. It follows that I don’t think Zopa needs to do anything further to put things right. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs O to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Shannon O'Brien Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --