FIRST RESPONSE FINANCE LIMITED · DRN-6159659

The complaint Miss G complains that a vehicle supplied to her under a hire purchase agreement with FIRST RESPONSE FINANCE LIMITED (FRF) is of unsatisfactory quality. What happened In December 2024 Miss G entered into a hire purchase agreement with FRF to acquire a used car. The car was around six years old, with a mileage of around 62,133. The cash price of the car was £9,450.00 with a deposit of £4,000.00 being paid. The total amount payable on the agreement was £14,274.84 to be repaid by 61 payments of £168.44. Miss G explained that shortly into the agreement, she encountered issues with her vehicle. There was a delay in collecting the vehicle, but this was recovered to the dealership towards the end of January 2025. Miss G added that there were delays with the repair to her vehicle, and that she had asked to reject it. She also complained to FRF about what was happening. Alongside this, Miss G also explained that she encountered service issues with the dealership and in particular the way the vehicle was attempted to be, and finally was delivered back to her. Miss G also explained the impact this had on her mental health and has explained how this had a deep impact on her. I hope Miss G is recovering and is able to continue to recover. FRF did not uphold the complaint. In its final response, FRF explained that Miss G was unable to reject the vehicle, it hadn’t been notified about rejection until 11 March 2025 and that the vehicle has been repaired. As Miss G was unhappy with this, she brought her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, where it was passed to one of our investigators. The investigator upheld the complaint, but did not think a rejection of the vehicle was fair in this case. The investigator explained Miss G should be entitled to a refund of some payments made and an amount for distress and inconvenience caused. Miss G disagreed with the outcome and as such, I’ve been asked to review the complaint to make a final decision. As a note, there are parts of Miss G’s complaint that I won’t be able to consider, such as the dealerships actions in returning the vehicle, or the altercation that Miss G has explained took place. Alongside this I can see Miss G has explained her health situation and the help she is accessing. If Miss G requires it, the Financial Ombudsman Service can signpost Miss G to organisations that may be able to help. I hope Miss G is recovering well and continues to recover. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable

-- 1 of 4 --

in the circumstances of this complaint. ’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant to the complaint. 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 think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome on this complaint. Miss G 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 Miss G’s complaint about FRF. FRF 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, Miss G acquired a car that was around six years old and had travelled around 62,133 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 brand-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 Miss G experienced with the car. Based on what I’ve seen, I’m satisfied that there was a fault with the car. I say this because neither FRF nor Miss G dispute the vehicle had faults and that repairs were required to resolve these. It also does not appear to be in dispute that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when it was originally supplied, due to the repairs needing carrying out so soon after the agreement started. Having reviewed the available information, I’m persuaded the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied, due to the issues Miss G experienced and the confirmed repairs that needed carrying out happening so soon after purchase. As the need for these repairs, and the dealership accepting responsibility for them are not disputed either, I do not need to go further into the satisfactory quality element. Instead, I’ll focus on the crux of the complaint, whether a rejection of the vehicle is fair, and what if anything FRF need to do differently. I can see that Miss G strongly believes she had asserted her right to reject the vehicle. Miss G has also explained that she accepted repairs as a remedy in late January 2025. From the information available, I can see that Miss G did send an email that mentioned the potential rejection of the vehicle and this appears to be dated 27 January 2025. As Miss G explained she accepted repairs as of 28 January 2025. Miss G has then explained due to the delays she has experienced, she wanted to reject the vehicle during the course of the time she was without the vehicle. Miss G also explained that the courtesy car she had use of during some of the time she was without her vehicle wasn’t a like for like swap and had limited use.

-- 2 of 4 --

I can see that FRF have responded to Miss G around 11 March 2025 to explain it is the first time they’d known she wanted to reject the vehicle. I can also see an email from the dealership to Miss G was sent around 6 March 2025 explaining what had been going on, that the repair had still been moving forward despite a member of staff leaving, the parts had been ordered and that labour was due to be completed next week. I appreciate what Miss G has said around her rejection of the vehicle, and in particular her email in January 2025 which does mention potential rejection. However, Miss G has accepted repairs following this. Miss G has also sent images of a handwritten letter, and whilst I don’t doubt Miss G had written this, I have nothing to show when or how this was sent. Even taking into account that it was sent, this letter does not clearly state a rejection request, and is dated very soon after the vehicle was recovered to the dealership. Whilst the repairs have not been carried out as quickly as Miss G would have liked, I’m not persuaded that they have taken an unreasonable amount of time in this case and under these circumstances. I have no evidence that shows why the vehicle was not collected recovered to the dealership until the end of January, however Miss G has accepted repairs following this. There have then been weeks where Miss G’s vehicle has been in the dealership’s possession, and I appreciate why Miss G would have liked repairs to have been carried out faster than they were. I can see the dealership explained parts had been ordered, and a schedule for when the labour was due to be carried out. Whilst I appreciate Miss G’s position, I also think the dealership have tried to arrange the repairs, even against some unforeseen delay, and have explained to Miss G when the work is likely to be carried out. With everything I have available, I’m not persuaded the repairs were not carried out in a wholly unreasonable timeframe given everything we know. Miss G was given use of a courtesy car covering the period her vehicle was recovered to the dealership, with FRF confirming she still had use of this until her vehicle was repaired. I acknowledge what Miss G has said about the courtesy car, and its use, however a like for like courtesy car cannot be guaranteed, and it does appear Miss G was kept mobile during this time. Miss G explained she had suffered from her health, making it difficult for FRF or the dealership to contact her, and there was difficulty in arranging the return of the vehicle. I acknowledge this, however I’m not persuaded that FRF have acted unfairly in the return of her vehicle. I appreciate Miss G has mentioned issues with how it was returned to her by the dealership and an altercation that took place. As explained above, these are issues I am unable to consider, however Miss G may be able to complain to the relevant businesses involved if she would like to. Overall, I’m persuaded that the information available does not show that FRF have unfairly rejected Miss G’s request to reject the vehicle on this occasion although I acknowledge Miss G strongly disagrees. Putting things right As I’m persuaded the car was not of satisfactory quality, it is fair that FRF put things right. In this case as outlined above, I’m persuaded the repairs were a fair outcome, as such I would not direct FRF to accept a rejection of the vehicle. There does appear to be time where Miss G was without her vehicle from the issue taking place, until it was recovered to the dealership and then repaired. Miss G should be refunded any monthly payment where she was without use or potential use of her vehicle, and did not have access to a courtesy car.

-- 3 of 4 --

I can see FRF have agreed that there was one payment that falls under these conditions as the rest were all covered by the period Miss G had access to the courtesy car. It is fair that Miss G receives a refund for the month she was without use of her vehicle or the courtesy car, but as she was kept mobile, it would not be fair for Miss G to receive a refund of the payments made or due whilst she was kept mobile and her vehicle was in for repair. FRF have explained that it would like to be able to credit the account with the refund of monthly payments as the account is in arrears. Given the account situation it is not unreasonable for FRF to do this. Miss G has explained that the situation took a significant toll on her mental health, and I have kept this in mind whilst looking at this complaint. I agree with the investigator that a payment of £350.00 from FRF to Miss G is fair for distress and inconvenience caused in this case. This is because the impact has been higher on Miss G than it may have been on another person in a similar situation, and to reflect the heightened distress caused during the time Miss G was trying to arrange repairs and deal with the issues she has raised as part of her complaint. As this amount is for distress and inconvenience caused, it is not reasonable for FRF to credit the agreement account with this sum. My final decision For the reasons explained, I uphold Miss G’s complaint and instruct FIRST RESPONSE FINANCE LIMITED to do the following: • Refund some monthly payments as outlined above. • Pay 8% simple yearly interest* on the above, to be calculated from when Miss G made the payments to the date of the refund. • Pay £350.00 for distress and inconvenience caused. • Remove any incorrect adverse information about the agreement from Miss G’s credit file to cover when her vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality if applicable from 23 December 2024 until 20 March 2025. *HM Revenue & Customs requires instruct FIRST RESPONSE FINANCE LIMITED to deduct tax from the interest amount. instruct FIRST RESPONSE FINANCE LIMITED should give Miss G a certificate showing how much tax it has deducted if she asks for one. Miss G can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss G to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Jack Evans Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --