Black Horse Limited · DRN-6095575

The complaint Miss F complains that the car she acquired through Black Horse Limited (“BHL”) wasn’t of satisfactory quality. She wants to reject the car, end the credit agreement, and have BHL pay her some compensation. What happened Miss F entered a hire purchase agreement in November 2022 to acquire a used car. The cash price of the car was £30,999, and after taking account of the advance payment of £7,000, the amount of credit provided totalled £23,999. The credit agreement was set up over a term of 48 months, with monthly rentals of £366.77 and if it ran to term, the total amount repayable would be £38,739.08. At the time of the acquisition, the car was around three years old and had been driven just under 20,000 miles. The details of this complaint are extensive, but are known to both parties, so I’m only going to summarise the key points here: Miss F says: • She brought a complaint to this Service previously about faults with this car, and her complaint was upheld; • the faults concerned the car’s tailgate wiring; an issue with the Diesel Particulate Filter (“DPF”); and the Exhaust Gas Recirculation (“EGR”) system. BHL was instructed to pay her £5,563.23 in 2024 because the faults were inherent; • she’s now experienced further problems with the car - it broke down and went into limp mode, and she believes the latest issues are connected to the initial fault; • she’s had to pay for further repairs to keep herself mobile, which she says are related to the same mechanical faults she experienced previously; • the car has caused her nothing but stress and relentless administration, and she wants to reject the car, have the agreement cancelled, and be paid some compensation. BHL rejected this complaint. It said it had received no mechanical evidence that the fault was present or developing at the point of sale. It noted that the reported fault was an issue with the DPF, but that Miss F had paid for repairs and collected the car in May 2025. BHL said it had spoken to the garage that had undertaken repairs and been told that it was a different component that failed on this occasion, and it said the DPF only needed regenerating because it is connected to the failed component; the EGR valve had been replaced. BHL said it had seen nothing to suggest the EGR was faulty when the car was supplied, and it noted that Miss F had been able to drive more than 26,000 miles since the car was supplied. Our Investigator looked at this complaint and said he thought it should be upheld. He noted the “need for substantive and repeated DPF and EGR system repairs” in 2023 and 2024 and said this evidenced an underlying defect with the car from Miss F’s earlier complaint when BHL agreed to cover the cost of repairs, but he noted a subsequent invoice showed further

-- 1 of 5 --

work on the high and low pressure EGR coolers; the throttle body; and some sensors which needed replacing just 12 months later. Our Investigator considered BHL’s submissions that due to the time that had elapsed and the mileage that Miss F had been able to drive, the current faults could not have been present or developing at the point of supply, but he set out the timeline of events in great detail, and he explained the inter-relationships between the components in question and concluded that, considering the repairs as a whole, their failure and the need for their replacement at just 46,000 miles represented premature failure – either the components were not durable, or earlier repairs had not been successful. Put simply, he said it was unlikely that a car would experience three unrelated emissions system failures in so short a period of time. Our Investigator explained the relevance of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) in the circumstances of this complaint and concluded that the car supplied was not of satisfactory quality and the current faults would indicate that normally, the fair remedy would be to permit Miss F to reject the car. Our Investigator explained that because BHL hadn’t been given an opportunity to inspect the car and because Miss F had already paid for repairs, then the rejection of a repaired car wasn’t the right way to settle this complaint. Instead he recommended that BHL reimburse Miss F for the cost of the repairs, and any costs of the diagnostics she may have paid for, together with a refund of some monthly rentals to reflect the period she couldn’t use the car, and he asked it to pay Miss F some compensation for the significant inconvenience she’d been caused. Both Miss F and BHL disagreed with our Investigator’s recommendations. Miss F supplied transcripts and call recordings of telephone conversations she’d had with BHL representatives. She said that at no point had she been told she could reject the car, and had she been told this was possible, subject to an independent inspection, she wouldn’t have proceeded with further repairs. Miss F also said that she’s now had further faults with the car, and it is currently off the road. She said she suspects the latest fault is related to earlier engine issues, but she’s not yet had diagnostics completed. BHL said driving style; the quality of fuel; and the maintenance of the car all affect the durability of the parts in question. And it emphasised that Miss F had driven around 27,000 miles in the time she’d had the car and provided no evidence that the fault was inherent. Our Investigator reviewed again the submissions and evidence supplied by both parties, but said he still was of the view that the complaint should be upheld, and that it should be fairly settled in the way he’d set out previously. In response to BHL, he said that although there was no definitive evidence, such as an independent engineer’s report, he was persuaded that the overall pattern of faults affecting the car’s emission system, as well as the repeated need for repairs, together with the relatively low mileage at which the EGR cooler required replacing, indicated that the car was not sufficiently durable. In response to Miss F, our Investigator explained that having listened to the phone calls and looked carefully at the transcripts, he couldn’t conclude that Miss F had been denied an opportunity to reject the car, or that BHL had acted unreasonably. In order to investigate this complaint, in view of the time that had elapsed since supply, it wasn’t unreasonable for BHL

-- 2 of 5 --

to seek evidence of the car’s faults, and their cause, without this, it couldn’t be expected to agree to the car’s rejection. Finally, in respect of the new faults with the car that Miss F had referenced, our Investigator explained that she’d need to raise a new complaint with BHL and provide it with any evidence of diagnostics that it asked for, before any repairs were completed, so that it could complete its investigation. Because both Miss F and BHL disagreed with our Investigator’s recommendations, the complaint comes to me to decide. 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. I hope that Miss F won’t take it as a discourtesy that I’ve condensed her complaint in the way that I have. Ours is an informal dispute resolution service, and I’ve concentrated on what I consider to be the crux of this complaint. Our rules allow me to do that. Miss F should note, however, that although I may not address each individual point that she’s raised, I have given careful consideration to all of her submissions before arriving at my final decision. Having considered all the evidence and testimony afresh, I’ve reached the same conclusion as our Investigator and for broadly the same reasons. I’ll explain why. The credit agreement entered into by Miss F is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means that this Service is able to consider complaints relating to it. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) is relevant to this complaint. It says that under a contract to supply goods, there is an implied term that the “quality of the goods is satisfactory”. To be considered “satisfactory” the goods would need to meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory – taking into account any description of the goods, the price and other relevant factors. Those factors, in the case of a vehicle purchase, will include things like the age and mileage of the vehicle at the time of sale, and the vehicle’s history. The quality of the goods includes their general condition and other things like their fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, safety and durability. First of all, I need to explain to Miss F the things I’m not looking at as part of this complaint. I’m not re-opening or re-considering the earlier complaint that has already been decided. This was the first complaint, and the agreed remedy was that BHL paid for the repairs that Miss F had undertaken. I’m also not looking into Miss F’s most recent claim that the car has broken down again and can’t be driven. This Service can only consider a complaint once the business – in this case BHL – has had an opportunity to investigate matters first of all. Only if the consumer is unhappy with the business’ final response, or if the business takes too long to complete its investigation, will this Service consider the complaint. So, in respect of her most recent complaint about the car, Miss F will need to raise a complaint with BHL in the first instance. So having set out clearly what I’m not looking at, I’ll now address what I have considered.

-- 3 of 5 --

I’m satisfied that the car has experienced further faults since the original repairs. I’ve looked carefully at the submissions of BHL, and acknowledge that on this occasion, it hasn’t been provided with diagnostics or an independent report about these faults, and this is no longer possible as repairs were carried out. But there’s no doubt that there were faults – the work that Miss F paid for evidences this. I’ve considered all the information this Service has been sent and, as our Investigator explained, where there’s a dispute between the parties, as there is here, and an absence of concrete evidence or certainty, I have to make my decision on the balance of probabilities; what I think is more likely to be the case. In this particular case, there’s been a number of faults and repairs, all of which appear to be interrelated in the sense that they relate to parts and components with an interdependency, more so than other car components. And in the absence of anything adverse about Miss F’s driving style or her maintenance of the car, I’m persuaded that either the earlier repairs were not completely successful, or that the recent faulted components were not sufficiently durable at the outset. So I am going to hold BHL responsible in this case. Now, I understand Miss F’s point about wishing to reject the car. But as things stand today, I’m only looking at the faults from May 2025. And although the future investigation of the latest fault that Miss F reports may end up proving otherwise, the faults from May 2025 were addressed, components were repaired, and I’ve seen no evidence that shows these repairs – the EGR coolers; the throttle body; the manifold gaskets and sensors – were not successful. Because of this, it wouldn’t be fair or reasonable to direct BHL to accept the rejection of the car. I do think, however, that BHL should reimburse Miss F for the cost of those repairs, and compensate her for the time when she couldn’t drive the car but continued to make her monthly payments, and for the stress, worry, and anxiety it caused. I’ve noted the frustration, worry and anxiety that this whole episode caused Miss F, and I’m going to ask BHL to pay the £150 recommended by our Investigator. Now, I understand that Miss F still believes the car is faulty, or that she does not have full confidence in any of the repair work that was previously completed, or she fears that other faults may manifest themselves in the future. In this situation, it would now be for Miss F to instruct a recognised independent engineer to inspect the car. And in the event an independent engineer identified faults, and their cause, and concluded that they were likely present or developing at the point of supply, or a result of previous failed repairs, or that any faulted component had not been sufficiently durable, Miss F could then bring a new complaint directly to BHL. In these circumstances, most businesses would consider rejection of the vehicle and reimburse their customer for the cost of that independent inspection. In summary, I’m upholding this complaint and I’m satisfied that the compensation suggested by our Investigator is both fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and I’m going to direct BHL to compensate Miss F accordingly.

-- 4 of 5 --

Putting things right I direct Black Horse Limited to put things right by doing the following: • Reimbursing Miss F for the cost of the repairs which I understand were £2,716.10; • Refunding Miss F her monthly rentals for the period when she was unable to use the car. I understand that this was for the period 16-30 May 2025; • Refunding Miss F, upon provision of a paid invoice, the cost of any diagnostics that she paid for in respect of this fault in May 2025; • Paying 8% simple yearly interest on all refunded amounts from the date of payment until the date of settlement*; • Paying Miss F £150 – if it hasn’t already done so – for the distress, worry, and inconvenience that’s been caused by the situation with the car that it supplied. *HM Revenue & Customs requires Black Horse Limited to take off tax from this interest. Black Horse Limited must give Miss F a certificate showing how much tax has been taken off if she asks for one. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and require Black Horse Limited to fairly settle this complaint as I’ve directed above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss F to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Andrew Macnamara Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --