CA Auto Finance UK Ltd · DRN-6245287

The complaint Mr J complains that a car supplied to him under a personal contract purchase with CA Auto Finance UK Ltd (CAF) is of unsatisfactory quality and that he should have been allowed to reject the vehicle. What happened The circumstances surrounding this complaint and my initial findings were set out in my provisional decision which said: “In November 2024, Mr J entered into a personal contract purchase with CAF to acquire a used car. The car was around five and a half years old and had travelled around 38,602 miles as listed on the agreement. The cash price of the car was £36,250.00 with an advance payment of £13,000.00 being paid. The total amount payable on the agreement was £42,349.50 to be repaid by 35 instalments of £337.10, followed by a final payment of £17,551.00. Mr J explained that less than six months into the agreement, the vehicle suffered catastrophic engine failure. Mr J went on to explain that the repair the vehicle needed took an unreasonable amount of time, that he wanted to reject the vehicle, he had been significantly inconvenienced due to his personal situation and at the point of bringing the complaint to this service, the repair still hadn’t been carried out. Mr J explained this caused significant financial pressure that led to him purchasing another vehicle, as he had to remain mobile. After raising his complaint with CAF, CAF issued a final response in which it offered to cover recovery costs of the vehicle, alongside reimbursing three months of instalments to mitigate inconvenience and the lack of a vehicle. Mr J did not agree with the outcome and brought his complaint to this service, where it was passed to one of our investigators. The investigator upheld the complaint. They explained that they agreed the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, but it had been repaired, and as the repair did not take an unreasonable amount of time they would not deem rejection of the vehicle to be a fair outcome. Instead, the investigator said the repair was fair and explained CAF should pay Mr J a refund of some of his monthly instalments, along with an amount for distress and inconvenience caused. Mr J did not agree with the outcome and supplied some further comments. As the comments did not change the investigator’s outcome, I’ve been asked to revie the complaint to make a decision.” I sent Mr J and CAF my provisional decision. I explained why I thought the complaint should be upheld. The key parts of my provisional findings are copied below: I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. “I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is

-- 1 of 7 --

relevant. 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 my decision. Mr J acquired a car under a personal contract purchase. Entering into consumer credit contracts like this is a regulated activity, so I’m satisfied we can consider Mr J’s complaint about CAF. CAF 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. The CRA also explains the durability of goods is part of satisfactory quality. In this case, Mr J acquired a car that was around five and a half years old and had travelled around 38,602 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 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 Mr J experienced with the car. Based on what I’ve seen, I’m satisfied that there were faults with the car that required a replacement engine and I’m persuaded the car was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied because of this. I say this because neither CAF or Mr J dispute the vehicle has been faulty and both appear to agree the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied. As such I will focus my decision not on if the car was of satisfactory quality when it was supplied, as this is not in dispute, but instead on what CAF have done to put things right, and if this is enough under the circumstances. Mr J’s main issues appear to be in relation to the delays he experienced in having his vehicle fixed, and quite significantly, that he wasn’t informed that it had been fixed, and wasn’t told where, when and how he could collect it. I can see Mr J has set out a timeline where he was receiving very limited updates and information in relation to what he was being told about the vehicle and why it was taking the amount of time it was to investigate and repair. CAF have also supplied a timeline from the dealership showing what actions were being taken, when and why. Having looked at the timelines involved, I can appreciate why Mr J was feeling frustrated, particularly as he’d outlined he needed to be kept mobile due to upcoming medical appointments and his personal situation. However I’m not persuaded that the repair took an unreasonable amount of time under the circumstances. After the vehicle was recovered to the repairer, I can see there were inspections required, and the warranty company involved needed specific information and details alongside further clarification on root causes and evidence. A further inspection was required and this was then carried out, with the warranty claim being authorised on 18 July 2025. The parts are then stated as ordered, with repairs

-- 2 of 7 --

commencing around four days later, with the repairs being completed around 28 July 2025 and the next day the broker being notified the vehicle was repaired, road-tested and available immediately. As mentioned, I acknowledge why Mr J will have experienced this timeline under pressure and stress. However, I’m not persuaded this shows the repairs took an unreasonable amount of time, or that CAF had any hand in delaying them. I’m persuaded it is reasonable that due to such a high-value repair, and the information required by the warranty company, that the repairs were carried out in a reasonable timeframe. I understand Mr J had asked to reject the vehicle and hadn’t accepted repairs due to the length of time taken, however, as CAF are allowed an attempt to repair the vehicle under the CRA, and I’m not persuaded these took too long, repair of the vehicle is fair. Mr J explained he wasn’t clearly informed that his car was repaired, that it was ready for collection or where and when he could collect it. CAF have explained he has been told this information, and have supplied information it believes shows this. Having looked at all of the evidence I have in this complaint, I’m not satisfied that CAF have done enough to clearly explain to Mr J that his vehicle can be collected, where it can be collected from or the process that needs to be followed. I say this because the only information I can see informing Mr J about his vehicle definitively being repaired and ready for collection is contained in an email sent from CAF to Mr J’s third-party representative he’d asked CAF to correspond with. This email was sent on 10 September 2025 and states the vehicle is repaired and ready for collection. It does not explain how he can collect it, where from or when. There was other contact received by Mr J that could have alluded to the fact the vehicle was due to be repaired, but nothing definitive. The investigator also explained to Mr J in their view that Mr J should now collect the vehicle. Mr J responded to explain that he wasn’t aware the vehicle had been repaired. Having considered all of the available information, I’m persuaded that CAF could have done more to facilitate the collection of Mr J’s vehicle. Mr J could well have followed this up himself, alongside Mr J’s third party representative, however the onus is not solely on Mr J to do this, and CAF should have given clearer information about the collection process rather than the one email I’ve seen. CAF also included another email from June 2025 referencing the expected delivery time of the vehicle, but this is pre-repair.” I invited both parties to make any further comments. CAF responded to the provisional decision to disagree with the redress recommended as it believes it is reasonable for Mr J to have known from the email it sent in September his car was ready to be picked up from the dealership. Mr J responded to disagree with the provisional decision and raised a number of points as to why. Some are relevant to this complaint and will be answered below, whereas some raise new complaint issues, or issues this decision cannot consider. As explained, I won’t comment on everything raised, not because I haven’t taken it on board, but because I don’t need to comment on it to reach a fair outcome in this case. Now both parties have had an opportunity to comment, I can go ahead with my decision. What I’ve decided - and why

-- 3 of 7 --

As Mr J and CAF responded with points to be considered, it will be useful for me to provide answers to these here where needed. As explained above, CAF responded and stated Mr J was aware that the vehicle was being repaired by the dealership and to suggest he would not know who to contact to arrange collection overlooks his own responsibility. I acknowledge what CAF have said here, and in my provisional decision I have explained that Mr J could have done more to facilitate the return of his vehicle, however I’m not persuaded the email sent to Mr J’s representative demonstrates enough of an attempt to clearly and fairly explain to Mr J what repairs have been carried out, when he can collect the vehicle, where he can collect it and how he can arrange this. I’d also expect this to have been followed up by CAF and the dealership when no action was taken. Mr J has explained he is classed as vulnerable, and under the circumstances of the complaint and the information I’ve considered, it is fair and reasonable that CAF and the dealership should have done more to facilitate the collection of Mr J’s vehicle and not put the onus on him. This does not mean that Mr J could not have tried to do more himself to attempt to mitigate the situation however, and this is why it is fair that a rejection of the vehicle hasn’t been directed. Mr J responded and explained that the vehicle not being communicated as repaired and ready and not having the vehicle back in his possession is highly important here and takes importance over the actual time the repairs took. Mr J also feels he would strongly disagree that he had received other contact alluding to the vehicle being repaired, without being definitive. I appreciate what Mr J has said about the communication, and have outlined in my provisional decision why I’m not persuaded CAF did enough here. However, Mr J also could have done more to attempt to facilitate the return of his vehicle, particularly with a representative attached. CAF should have clearly communicated how Mr J could collect his vehicle, and it is reasonable that it should have followed this up. Mr J could also have contacted the dealership about this if he was unsure. The onus is not on Mr J to take every step himself to do this, but neither CAF nor Mr J have taken all of the reasonable steps available to them to facilitate the return of the vehicle. So, whilst I take into account what Mr J has said about the lack of communication and not being told the vehicle was repaired and the collection details, there is enough information to persuade me that Mr J could have attempted to have somewhat mitigated the circumstances. It is for these reasons that a rejection of the vehicle is not fair in this case. I acknowledge what Mr J has said about the depreciation of his vehicle, and the payments he’s made towards the interest on his agreement. Depreciation of vehicles is common across the industry and is not something that CAF have acted incorrectly on. With regards to the interest rate Mr J has paid, the refund of monthly payments will redress the time he has been without his vehicle, this will be the monthly payment due on the agreement as if Mr J had been paying for the vehicle and had use of it. I acknowledge what Mr J has said about the interest rate, however this is calculated and agreed as part of the agreement, and as Mr J hasn’t had the use of the vehicle as I’ve explained in the provisional decision, it is fair he receives those payments back regardless of interest rate. Mr J was also concerned about the condition his vehicle may be returned in, given that it has

-- 4 of 7 --

been transported a number of times and stored for some time. It is reasonable for Mr J to want to receive his car back in an appropriate condition, and if he feels that this does not happen, Mr J may well be able to raise a complaint about the businesses he feels have caused the damage. I appreciate Mr J’s comments on the complaints process, the concerns he has about it and how this has affected him. Alongside these issues, Mr J has raised points around warranty on work carried out and lost time on warranty. I appreciate Mr J’s comments on these issues, and Mr J will be able to discuss these warranty concerns with the relevant businesses. Mr J also expressed how his health and wellbeing has been irreparably damaged by what has happened. I’m sorry to hear how badly Mr J has been affected by the situation with his vehicle. I’ve taken what Mr J has said into account with the information previously considered. In the provisional decision, I’d recommended a higher amount for distress and inconvenience than in similar situations where the impact will have been less on a particular consumer. As such, I’d already recommended a higher level of distress and inconvenience taking into account the impact on Mr J, and still think this is a fair amount to reflect what has happened for the reasons explained. I hope Mr J can start to recover and the impact on him lessen over time. I thank Mr J and CAF for supplying the information explained and answered above in response to my provisional decision. After I’ve considered this alongside the existing information and my provisional decision, as none of the information has changed my decision, I see no reason to depart from my provisional findings outlined above alongside the added explanation to the points raised. It then follows that what I’d provisionally decided CAF needed to do to put things right has also not changed. Putting things right As it appears to be agreed the car was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied, I think it’s reasonable that CAF should put things right. I’ve explained above that a repair of the vehicle was reasonable in these circumstances, and I’m not persuaded the repairs took an unreasonable amount of time based on the information I have. As such I would not direct CAF to accept a rejection of the vehicle. I do find it reasonable that CAF should reimburse Mr J for the time he was without his vehicle due to it being of unsatisfactory quality. I’m also persuaded that Mr J has been without his vehicle for longer than he should have been because CAF have not given him clear enough information about the collection of his vehicle. As such it would be fair for CAF to reimburse Mr J’s monthly instalments from when the car experienced the engine failure, until CAF has carried out enough to try arrange the return of Mr J’s vehicle following the decision. It is fair for CAF to cover these payments as Mr J does not appear to have been kept mobile by CAF. Mr J also explained he’d incurred breakdown and storage costs. CAF should reimburse Mr J these costs if they are evidenced and related to the vehicle being of unsatisfactory quality. I’ve seen nothing so far to suggest they are not related.

-- 5 of 7 --

Mr J explained he incurred taxi fares and bought a replacement vehicle due to his being off the road. I’m not persuaded it is reasonable for CAF to cover these costs as there may well have been cheaper viable alternative methods of transport. I acknowledge why Mr J has raised these costs though. Alongside these costs, Mr J explained he’d had to keep paying insurance for the vehicle, however it is a requirement to keep the vehicle insured under the agreement and the insurance will likely have covered events other than potential damage from being on the road. I would not require CAF to repay Mr J’s insurance costs for the vehicle. Mr J has provided testimony on how the complained about events have affected him, given his personal situation. Having considered what Mr J has said, and thought about how this would’ve affected him in his own situation, I’m persuaded that it’s fair for CAF to pay Mr J a total of £500 for distress and inconvenience caused. I say this because Mr J was clear about his situation and why he needed his vehicle repaired or suitable transport arranged, it does appear Mr J was frustrated with the lack of updates on what was happening, his situation required access to transport and this alone would’ve caused heightened distress and inconvenience. Alongside this CAF have not been clear enough in relation to the collection of Mr J’s vehicle. As I’ve mentioned, Mr J alongside CAF could’ve done more to facilitate this, but this has likely caused additional inconvenience and stress. However, I acknowledge that Mr J strongly feels this does not put things right, and there are other points raised such as a potential misrepresentation of the vehicle that were not able to be considered as part of this decision. Mr J explained he’d recently discovered that the vehicle may have been misrepresented due to service history details, but this didn’t form part of the complaint raised to and responded to by CAF so I can’t see it has been given a chance to investigate and respond. As such, Mr J may well be able to complain separately if he believes the vehicle has been misrepresented to him. My final decision For the reasons explained, I uphold Mr J’s complaint and instruct CA Auto Finance UK Ltd to do the following: • Refund some monthly payments as outlined above. • Facilitate the return of Mr J’s vehicle. • Reimburse any evidenced breakdown and storage costs as outlined above. • Pay 8% simple yearly interest* on the above, to be calculated from when Mr J made the payment to the date of the refund. • Pay Mr J a total of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused. *HM Revenue & Customs requires CA Auto Finance UK Ltd to deduct tax from the interest amount. CA Auto Finance UK Ltd should give Mr J a certificate showing how much tax it has deducted If he asks for one. Mr J can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate.

-- 6 of 7 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Jack Evans Ombudsman

-- 7 of 7 --