DRN-6315379

The complaint Miss O complains that a car supplied to her under a personal contract purchase (PCP) and Fixed Sum Loan agreement with CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD (CA Auto) was of an unsatisfactory quality. What happened In December 2023 Miss O was supplied with a used car through a (PCP) and Fixed Sum Loan agreement with CA Auto. She paid an advance payment of £4,693.70 and the agreement was for £42,719.82; with 38 monthly payments of £497.24 and a final payment of £19,131. At the time of supply, the car was more than five years old and had done around 43,600 miles. Miss O said she has been told by a main dealer garage that in 2021 the car had been diagnosed as needing a new engine due to low compression. She said the work was never done. She said she believes the car was supplied to her with a pre-existing defect. She wants to reject the car, and the finance agreement ended. She said the car will now no longer drive more than 20 miles per hour, meaning it is unusable and unsafe. Miss O said she’s has had numerous issues with the car since she acquired it in December 2023. She said the car went in for repair in February 2024 and wasn’t returned to her until August 2024. She said it broke down again in September 2024. She said the car is faulty, and despite the suppling dealer conducting repairs, the car still has significant problems. She says it has stalled in the road, frequently won’t engage reverse gear, and the performance is restricted. She said the restricted performance was the reason the car went into the dealer in February 2024. She said the car has had gearbox and DPF issues from June 2025 to August 2025. CA Auto said that Miss O had complained to them in November 2025. They said she complained that the car was supplied in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and was mispresented due to information being supplied that the vehicle was required to need a new engine after a compression test by a main dealer in 2021. CA Auto said there was no evidence to show that the faults currently being experienced were linked to, or arose from, any issues previously identified. They recognised that the car had experienced faults in the past, and these were addressed as part of her earlier complaint. They said Miss O had accepted the repair carried out by the supplying dealership. Miss O was unhappy with this response, so she referred her complaint to our service for investigation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Our investigator said he wasn’t persuaded that there was enough evidence to show that the latest fault with the car was present or developing when it was supplied. He explained why he felt the report from the main dealer garage didn’t provide sufficient detail or opinion on the present condition of the car and whether or not any fault was present or developing at the time the car was supplied to Miss O. Miss O didn’t agree with the investigator. She said the main dealer garage confirmed in November 2025 that the car still required a replacement engine, and this was consistent with the original findings. She also said that her analysis of the mileage in the annual MOT tests showed that the average mileage from the August 2021 diagnosis to the time the car was supplied to her in December 2023 dropped from almost 13,000 miles to under 2,000 miles. She said this was consistent with an owner having been told the engine needed replacing and significantly reducing their use of the car as a result. She said the car’s behaviour on the road, and the DPF and gearbox issues were all entirely consistent with an underlying engine compression failure. Because Miss O didn’t agree, this matter 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’ve reached the same overall conclusions as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. If I haven’t commented on any specific point, it’s because I don’t believe it’s affected what I think is the right outcome. Where evidence has been incomplete or contradictory, as it is in this complaint, I’ve reached my view on the balance of probabilities – what I think is most likely to have happened given the available evidence and wider circumstances. In considering this complaint I’ve had regard to the relevant law and regulations; any regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice, and (if appropriate) what I consider was good industry practice at the time. Miss O was supplied with a car under a fixed sum loan agreement. This is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means we are able to investigate complaints about it. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) covers agreements such as the one Miss O entered into. Under this agreement, there is an implied term that the goods supplied will be of satisfactory quality. The CRA says that goods will be considered of satisfactory quality where they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory – taking into account the description of the goods, the price paid, and other relevant circumstances. I think in this case those relevant circumstances include, but are not limited to, the age and mileage of the car and the cash price. So, if I thought the car was faulty when Miss O took possession of it, it’d be fair and reasonable to ask CA Auto to put this right. Fault It’s clear to me that there has been a history of issues with the car supplied to Miss O. That’s apparent from her testimony, but also from the information supplied to CA Auto by the supplying dealer.

-- 2 of 4 --

The issue I need to consider is whether or not the car was supplied to Miss O with a defect or fault that was already present or developing. I’m not persuaded that is the case. I’ll explain why. I’ve carefully considered what the main dealer garage has said about the fault with the car. It said: “requires new engine had been looked at in 2021 diagnosed as new engine after doing compression test” It later provided what it described as a “detailed report”. This said: “Upon review of the vehicle’s condition and previous diagnostic history, the customer was advised that the vehicle requires a replacement engine, consistent with the original findings recorded in 2021” There is no further explanation or diagnosis. Neither do I have any evidence of what happened after the 2021 report. We also have no information about what the fault was that led to this diagnosis. I’m not persuaded by this comment alone that the car has a fault that was present or developing at the time of supply to Miss O. So, I’ve gone on to consider the other evidence I have been provided with. The information from the MOT provided by Miss O tells us that the car was driven for around 5,000 miles between April 2021 and December 2023 when she acquired the car. I agree with Miss O that this demonstrates a drop in usage. But there could be many explanations for that drop. I’m not persuaded that I can rely on her assertion alone that the previous owner reduced their usage because of the 2021 report. During the time she’s had the car, it has been with the supplying dealer for a number of repairs – these were mainly DPF related, and a gearbox issue. These were all repaired by the supplying dealer. Miss O did have to contribute to the cost of the gearbox repair as the warranty contribution did not cover the full cost of that repair. I haven’t been provided with the job cards, but there is no reference or connection made to the need for a replacement engine or previous faults in any of the submissions. I’ve seen a report from an independent engineer, dated October 2024 when the car had done 51,757 miles. The report was arranged because Miss O believed a fault at that time were related to previous issues with the DPF, but the supplying dealer said they were due to a fault with the gearbox actuator being stuck. The engineer concluded that the fault at that time was not related to the previous fault with the DPF. He confirmed the fault was “a malfunction relating to the gearbox and will not allow any gear selection”. Crucially, the independent engineer did not find a link to the previous faults and made no comment that the engine needed replacing. The main dealer report Miss O asks me to rely on only says that the car requires a replacement engine. It gives no explanation of why. It merely confirms that this is the same position as it was in 2021. I don’t think that’s sufficient evidence to say the fault was never repaired sometime after August 2021 – especially given that the car has done more than 15,000 miles since then, including around 8,500 miles by Miss O. She says the low mileage

-- 3 of 4 --

after 2021 confirms the fault. As I said above, there could be many reasons for that reduced usage, so on its own I can’t accept that as evidence linking the issues. I’m not persuaded by the comment provided by the main dealer garage, and I’ve seen no evidence that persuades me that there is a fault with the car that was present or developing at the time the car was supplied to Miss O. So I won’t be requiring CA Auto to take any further action to resolve this complaint. My final decision For the reasons explained, I don’t uphold Miss O’s complaint about CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss O to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Gordon Ramsay Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --