Close Brothers Limited · DRN-6103750

The complaint Miss B complains about a car supplied under a conditional sale agreement, provided by Close Brothers Limited trading as Close Brothers Motor Finance (‘CB’). What happened Around September 2024 Miss B acquired a used car under a conditional sale agreement with CB. The car is listed with a cash price of £8,790. Miss B paid a deposit of £500. The car was around seven years old and had covered around 85,000 miles. Miss B said around the beginning of August 2025 when she was taxing the car, she found out it had previously been written off due to structural damage. Miss B was unhappy with this and complained to CB. CB issued a final response at the end of August 2025. This said, in summary, that it agreed Miss B’s car had been written off and it explained it should not have supplied it to Miss B or provided related finance. CB said Miss B could reject the car. It said it would reimburse one monthly payment and the deposit paid. And CB said it would pay Miss B £150 to reflect the inconvenience caused. The car was handed back, but Miss B was unhappy with the situation and referred the complaint to our service. She said the offer didn’t address the fact her family had been put in danger and said she had additional expenses throughout her ownership that should be repaid. Our investigator issued a view and upheld the complaint in part. He said, in summary, that the offer to reimburse one month’s payment was fair. He also said the offer of £150 to reflect the inconvenience was reasonable. But he said CB should also reimburse Miss B £249.99 from 2 July 2025 for the cost of a DPF clean, as she had not had the benefit of this. Our investigator said the other expenses Miss B complained about shouldn’t be reimbursed. And he said as the car was rejected, CB should also remove any adverse information from Miss B’s credit file. CB disagreed. In summary, it said the DPF clean was part of routine maintenance. It said no evidence has been provided of a fault with the DPF. And it said even if a fault was evidenced, it would then have to be established if CB was liable for it. Our investigator clarified he thought Miss B hadn’t had benefit of the DPF clean given how close it was to the time the car was rejected. CB remained unhappy. It said Miss B had use of the car for around four weeks after the DPF was cleaned, so she did have use of it. As CB remained unhappy, the complaint was passed to me to decide.

-- 1 of 4 --

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 think this complaint should be upheld in part. I’ll explain why. Firstly, I’d like to explain to both parties that I might not comment on every point raised or every single piece of evidence. I want to reassure Miss B and CB that I’ve carefully considered all of the available information. But, I’m going to focus my decision on what I consider to be the key facts and the crux of the complaint. This reflects the informal nature of our service. When considering what’s fair and reasonable, I take into account relevant law, guidance and regulations. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA’) is relevant to this complaint. This says, in summary, that under a contract to supply goods, the supplier – CB here – needed to make sure the goods were of ‘satisfactory quality’ and that they matched a description given. It’s helpful to set out that the car has now been rejected. So, I don’t need to consider the facts that led to this, as all parties agree the car shouldn’t have been supplied to Miss B as it had previously been written off. Miss B has also not raised any concerns about the fact the car was taken back. Instead, what I need to consider is whether the other parts of the offer CB made to put things right are fair and reasonable under the circumstances. I think it’s fair to say the crux of the outstanding issues is whether it’s reasonable for Miss B to be reimbursed the costs she’s mentioned. So, I’ve carefully thought about the payments. I’ve seen an invoice from 30 December 2024. This was for a windscreen replacement at a cost of £438. While Miss B says the windscreen was damaged when she got the car, I’ve seen no evidence of this. I do accept some damage might’ve been there when Miss B collected it, but I also think it’s quite possible the windscreen could’ve been later damaged. Or a small issue might have been present and then worsened. There is a lack of any evidence to consider here beyond what Miss B said. On balance, I’ve not seen enough to persuade me that this issue was most likely present or developing when Miss B got the car. I find this means this did not make the car of unsatisfactory quality and so I find CB are not responsible for this cost. I’ve seen a screenshot of what appears to be an appointment booking. This states an appointment was booked for 31 January 2025 and states “COMPUTER ALIGNMENT FRONT” but has no further details. This mentions an amount of £171.47. Miss B says this was for new tyres. I’ve thought about the tyres. In summary, I have no evidence these were not road legal or safe when the car was supplied. So, even if I accepted these were replaced, which I’ll comment on further below, I’ve not seen this means the car was of unsatisfactory quality. I have then considered whether Miss B got the use out of the tyres she expected, given this expense was from a few months prior to the car being handed back. On balance, thinking about this I’m probably minded to say CB doesn’t need to reimburse

-- 2 of 4 --

Miss B here, as she got well over six months use. But, whatever my thoughts, I don’t think it would be reasonable to ask CB to pay anything based on the evidence provided either way. I say this as I’ve not seen a breakdown of the cost, what – if anything - was supplied or repaired or any other information from the time. I’ve seen a screenshot of a payment to a company, whose name implies it is a specialist in wheel nut removal. This was from 4 February 2025 for £80. Again, there is no other evidence to consider. So, I don’t know what any fault was, or what it was caused by. Thinking about this, I again am not persuaded this meant the car was not of satisfactory quality when supplied and under the circumstances I don’t think it would be reasonable for CB to reimburse Miss B here. I’ve seen a screenshot of a payment to a company Miss B says performed a DPF clean for £249.99 from 2 July. I’m satisfied from what Miss B said this was from 2025. I’ve thought carefully about this. And it’s important to set out to CB that because this was nearly a year after supply, I find any associated fault was not present or developing at the point Miss B got the car. And I don’t think this means the car wasn’t durable. But I’ve then considered if it would still be fair and reasonable for CB to reimburse Miss B this cost, given how close it was to the car being rejected. Having thought about this, I find it would be fair for Miss B to get this back. I’ve considered CB’s point about this potentially being maintenance rather than a repair. But even if I accept this, I don’t think it would be right for Miss B to incur this cost and then only have use of the car following it for a few weeks. Clearly, she hasn’t had the benefit of this expense. And ultimately the reason this was the case is because she’s handed the car back soon after, due to an error CB made. Miss B hasn’t provided an invoice for this. But the screenshot of the payment shows the amount, date, location and company name. Given the name of the company and the amount, I’m satisfied Miss B has shown she did pay for a DPF clean, and it would be reasonable to reimburse this under the specific circumstances. Miss B mentioned other expenses, and explained she spent additional money four times when a garage saw the car for suspension and steering issues. But she explained she paid for this work in cash and hasn’t provided receipts or any other evidence. I don’t think, whatever happened, that it would be reasonable for CB to reimburse any costs Miss B can’t show she incurred. So, I’m not going to consider these further. I’ve then considered the other parts of the offer. The offer included that CB would reimburse Miss B the deposit she paid. This is in line with what I’d expect to see. CB reimbursed one monthly payment. Miss B mentioned the car had various issues towards the end of the time she had it, including with the steering. And she explained she couldn’t use the car for around four weeks before she gave it back. I’ve thought carefully about this. I will say there is a lack of evidence about any of the issues Miss B reports. But, overall, I’m satisfied it’s likely on balance CB did enough here to reflect what happened. From what I’ve seen, I’m persuaded Miss B suffered distress and inconvenience because of

-- 3 of 4 --

what went wrong. I’m sure it must have been upsetting to realise the car had been previously damaged. That being said, I agree with our investigator that CB took prompt steps to resolve the problem and Miss B was able to hand the car back. While Miss B says herself and her family were put in danger, thankfully, as far as I’m aware none of them came to any harm. I can only consider an award for what happened – not for what might have happened. Thinking about this in the round, I think £150 is enough to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. I’ve seen a letter from September 2025 confirming Miss B was already paid for the monthly instalment, the deposit and the distress and inconvenience. So, the only thing for CB to now reimburse is the amount from the DPF clean. I also agree with our investigator that as the car was rejected, any negative information should be removed from Miss B’s credit file, if CB hasn’t already done this. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I instruct Close Brothers Limited trading as Close Brothers Motor Finance to put things right by doing the following: • Reimburse Miss B the cost of the DPF clean, £249.99 from 2 July 2025* • Remove any adverse information from Miss B’s credit file in relation to this agreement, if applicable *This amount should have 8% simple yearly interest added from the time of payment to the time of reimbursement. If CB considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to withhold income tax from the interest, it should tell Miss B how much it’s taken off. It should also give Miss B a tax deduction certificate if she asks for one, so she can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue and Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms B to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. John Bower Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --