247 Money Group Limited · DRN-6135539

The complaint Ms T complains that a car supplied to her on finance with 247 Money Group Limited (‘247 Money’) is of unsatisfactory quality. 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 minimal formality. Ms T acquired a used car under a hire purchase agreement in January 2023, the car was five years old, and the mileage was around 40,500; the cash price of the vehicle was £12,326. In July 2025 Ms T complained to 247 Money. In short, she said she didn’t think the car was of satisfactory quality given that it experienced catastrophic engine failure so soon after she acquired it. For this reason, Ms T wanted to exercise her right to reject the vehicle. 247 Money issued its final response letter in September 2025; in summary it didn’t uphold the complaint. It said there was no evidence that the vehicle was not fit for purpose at the point of sale given the mileage covered and the fact that the vehicle did not suffer this failure soon after purchase. However, it did say given the vehicles age and mileage it appeared the wet belt degraded before it should have according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. So, it arranged to commission an independent inspection at no cost to Ms T. The complaint was referred to this Service, and the independent inspection was arranged. The engineer concluded that it couldn’t confirm a fault because it was unable to start and run the engine due to no oil in the vehicle. But it said even if it did confirm a fault with the wet belt and engine failure, it wouldn’t say the fault was present or developing at the point of supply as Ms T would’ve been unable to undertake the number of miles she has. Our Investigator reviewed the evidence but didn’t uphold the complaint. Overall, she didn’t think 247 Money needed to do anything to put things right. She was persuaded there was a fault with the wet belt resulting in engine failure. But she thought it was highly likely that the deterioration took place over some time and was unlikely to have been present or developing at the point of supply. She also said she’d be willing to reconsider the outcome if Ms T was able to provide the service history of the car whilst it’s been in Ms T’s possession. Ms T disagreed, she maintained the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality and that the car had failed prematurely. She didn’t think significant weight should’ve been placed on the independent inspection given that it wasn’t able to physically inspect the belt. She questioned the vehicle’s durability and said this was a well-known failure with this particular make and model of car. As an agreement couldn’t be reached the complaint has been passed to me to decide.

-- 1 of 5 --

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 our Investigator and for broadly the same reasons. I know this will come as a disappointment to Ms T, but I will explain my reasons below. Before I do so I think it’s extremely important for me to set out exactly what I’ve been able to consider here. Ms T has referred to similar decisions done by other ombudsman at this Service which Ms T says are the same/similar circumstances and issues of this complaint. So, she would appreciate consistency. Whilst this is noted, a crucial part of our Service and the way we consider complaints is that we consider each complaint on its own merits and its own individual circumstances. So, my decision won’t be impacted in any way by something another person may or may not have experienced, no matter how similar Ms T feels the situation is. I trust Ms T will not take the fact that my findings focus on what I consider to be the central issue as a discourtesy. The purpose of my decision isn’t to address every point raised but to set out my conclusions and reasons for reaching them. This reflects the nature of our service as an informal alternative to the courts. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I haven’t, I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. 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 good industry practice at the time. The hire purchase agreement entered by Ms T is a regulated consumer credit agreement and this Service is able to consider complaints relating to it. 247 Money is also the supplier of the goods under this type of agreement and responsible for a complaint about its quality. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) covers agreements like the one Ms T entered. Because 247 Money 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 the age and mileage of the car and the price paid. The CRA says that the quality of goods includes the general state and condition, and other things such as its fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects and safety can be aspects of the quality of the goods. Satisfactory quality also covers durability. For cars, this means the components must last a reasonable amount of time. Of course, durability will depend on various factors. In Ms T’s case the car was used and covered approximately 40,500 miles when she acquired it. So, I’d have different expectations of it compared to a brand-new car. Having said that, the cars condition should have met the standard a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, given its age, mileage, and price. It isn’t in dispute that there’s a fault with the car, both Ms T and a breakdown recovery report confirm this. But simple existence of a fault in itself isn’t enough to hold 247 Money responsible for repairing the car or accepting its rejection.

-- 2 of 5 --

A car has numerous mechanical and electrical parts which will inevitably wear with age and use. Different parts of a vehicle will have differing expected lifespans, and some will be required to be replaced as part of regular ongoing maintenance. With this in mind I’ve not seen anything to persuade me that the faults with the wet belt and engine which Ms T complains of now failed prematurely. As a starting point, there must be clear evidence identifying the fault and, importantly, showing that it rendered the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply. The CRA also implies that goods must confirm to contract within the first six months. So, where a fault is identified within the first six months, it’s assumed the fault was present when the car was supplied, unless 247 Money can show otherwise. But, where the fault is identified after the first six months, the CRA implies that it’s for Ms T to show it was present when the car was supplied. So, if I thought the car was faulty when Ms T took possession of it, or that the car wasn’t sufficiently durable, and this made the car of unsatisfactory quality, it’d be fair and reasonable to ask 247 Money to put this right. It isn’t in dispute that Ms T has experienced problems with the car. I’ve been provided with a copy of a rescue report which confirms: • carried out checks for warning light • suspect wet belt issue as oil light on dashboard • mbr has booked into garage next week • advised not to drive • drive to garage only Following the vehicle breakdown Ms T drove the car to her local garage. Here she was told, ‘…we have found that your wet belt which drives the oil pump has no teeth on it, so the oil has not been pumping around the engine which has caused internal engine damage. We recommend fitting a new engine which will cost £5,106.’ So, I’m satisfied the vehicle has a fault and requires extensive repair. But just because the car requires repair, doesn’t automatically follow that it wasn’t of satisfactory quality when it was supplied. 247 Money commissioned an independent inspection which was carried out on 1 December 2025, and the car at this point was eight years old and had undertaken around 48,000 miles in total. The engineer said: ‘… We were unable to confirm the wet belt was degraded as we were unable to physically see the belt. Due to the engine having no oil in it we were unable to start the engine to confirm any faults... …We have noted that the vehicle has covered 7’487 miles since purchase. Therefore, in our opinion, if a fault has occurred with the engine this would not have been present at purchase due to the mileage covered. However assuming a wet belt condition is present, which would not be unusual, if the vehicle service history is correct it would need to be referred to the manufacturers for

-- 3 of 5 --

consideration. … service history will need to be carefully scrutinised.’ It went on to confirm that it was unable to inspect the engine due to oil being drained but given the information it had, the faults identified would be deterioration and would not be unexpected given the vehicles age and mileage. The engineer said the available evidence wouldn’t support the conditions were developing at the point of supply and after 8,400 miles of further use, the service history may be significant. I accept the inspection was limited in scope and the engineer couldn’t physically inspect the wet timing belt, nor could it inspect the engine given the lack of oil in the vehicle. But the engineer confirmed the comments on the matter would’ve been based on his experience in the field and formal qualifications. Ms T says that the wet belt failed sooner than the manufacturer’s recommended interval and I understand why Ms T considers this to be a premature failure. However, it is also recognised that this type of failure can occur where regular servicing has not been maintained. Routine servicing would ordinarily include, at a minimum, an oil level check and, where necessary, an oil change, both of which are important factors in preserving the condition of a wet belt system. I appreciate that the service history documentation was unfortunately destroyed in a flood, which was clearly outside of Ms T’s control. That said, given that the relevant services should have taken place relatively recently, including at least two during Ms T’s period of ownership, it is reasonable to expect that alternative forms of evidence may have been available to demonstrate that the vehicle was serviced in line with the manufacturer’s recommendations (for example, invoices, bank statements, or records from the servicing garage). As there is currently no documentation confirming that the vehicle was maintained and serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s schedule, I consider that the absence of verified servicing may have been a contributing factor to the overall engine failure. I’ve also taken into account that Ms T’s car had travelled over 8,000 miles since she acquired the vehicle by the time this problem happened. This isn’t an insignificant amount of mileage and would lead me to doubt whether I could say for certain that the issues with the engine shouldn’t have occurred at that time because of an underlying fault with it at the point of supply. Given that Ms T was able to travel around 8,000 miles, I’m persuaded an inherent fault would have presented itself much sooner. Reference has been made to a recall in another country for what is said to be a similar issue. However, the existence of a recall elsewhere does not establish that this vehicle was affected by the same defect or that it was of unsatisfactory quality at the point of sale. Recalls can vary based on many factors such as production batch, or specification, and are often issued as precautionary measures rather than confirmation of a widespread defect. Without clear evidence that the recall applies directly to this vehicle and the specific fault in question, it cannot be relied upon as proof of an inherent issue and so I’ve not placed any weight on this in coming to my findings. I empathise with the situation Ms T is now left in, and I understand why this isn’t the outcome she would’ve wanted. But for the reasons I’ve explained I won’t be asking 247 Money to take any further action in relation to this complaint.

-- 4 of 5 --

My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms T to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Rajvinder Pnaiser Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --