MotoNovo Finance Limited · DRN-6194437

The complaint Mr M complains about a car supplied to him using a hire purchase agreement taken out with MotoNovo Finance Limited (“MotoNovo”). What happened In February 2025, Mr M acquired a used car using a hire purchase agreement with MotoNovo. The car was over seven years old, its cash price was £20,299, and its mileage was 51,631 miles. The agreement was for 60 months, made up of 59 regular, monthly repayments of £444.38, followed by a final payment of £445.38, which included a £1 option to purchase fee. Within a couple of months of acquiring the car, Mr M said he experienced several issues with it. Among other things, Mr M said he noticed excessive engine oil in the car, as well as the engine oil smelling of fuel. Mr M also said the car was jerky when decelerating and that it had an abnormal exhaust note. The odour of the oil was also confirmed by a third-party, which was a manufacturer garage, and they also suspected fuel leaking into the cylinders. Mr M complained to MotoNovo in April 2025. As the weeks went on, Mr M identified further issues with the car, such as with a failure to one of the car’s parking sensors, and a squealing noise being heard from the car’s brakes. Mr M referred his complaint to our service in June 2025. In July 2025, Mr M arranged for an inspection into a belt replacement and pulley, to mitigate further risk. He explained that an investigation into the car’s fuel dilution could exceed £2,800, before any repair was carried out to it. In August 2025, an independent inspection was carried out to the car. In summary, it concluded that it did identify issues in the form of an abnormal metallic rattle from the front of the car, consistent with an engine mount issue; a parking sensor fault; and that the rear exhaust flap needed securing. The report suggested that these issues were likely present or developing at the point of supply, given the car had travelled around 3,000 miles since it was acquired. During our investigation Mr M provided copies of several quotes he had received to repair various components of the car. MotoNovo issued their final response in which they upheld Mr M’s complaint and offered to cover the cost of repairs carried out to the issues the independent inspection had identified. MotoNovo also offered to reimburse Mr M for a diagnostic fee he paid, a reimbursement of 10% of his monthly repayments from April 2025, as well as £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused. Mr M felt that MotoNovo needed to address the issue with the car’s engine oil levels as well as indications that the car’s engine control unit (“ECU”) had been modified, among other things.

-- 1 of 6 --

Our investigator upheld this complaint. In summary, the investigator found there were faults with the car which made it of unsatisfactory quality and thought MotoNovo needed to do more in addition to the offer they had made Mr M. The investigator put forward to both parties what she thought was a fair way to resolve matters. Mr M responded to the investigator’s view, and among other things, wanted to make it clear that he thought a misrepresentation had been made in relation to the car’s ECU. MotoNovo disagreed with the investigator’s findings. Among other things, they thought the fault to the oil pump actuator was likely due to wear and tear. Our investigator responded and explained that their outcome hadn’t changed. Motonovo didn’t respond to the investigator’s subsequent view. As MotoNovo didn’t respond, the complaint was passed 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. Having done so, I’m upholding this complaint and I’ll explain why below. I’m aware I have summarised events and comments made by both parties very briefly, in less detail than has been provided, largely in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. In addition, 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 point or argument to be able to reach what I think is a fair outcome. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as an alternative to the courts. Mr M complains about a car supplied to him under a hire purchase agreement. Entering into consumer credit contracts such as this is a regulated activity, so I’m satisfied I can consider Mr M’s complaint about MotoNovo. When considering what’s fair and reasonable, I take into account relevant law and regulations. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) is relevant to this complaint. The CRA explains under a contract to supply goods, the supplier – MotoNovo here – has a responsibility to make sure goods are of satisfactory quality. Satisfactory quality is what a reasonable person would expect – taking into account any relevant factors. I would consider relevant factors here, amongst others, to include the car’s age, price, mileage and description. So, it’s important to note that the car Mr M acquired was used, over seven years old, had been driven around 51,630 miles and cost almost £20,300. While I think a reasonable person would accept that it would not be in the same condition as a new car and was likely to have some parts that are worn, it is also worth noting that this car acquired was a premium, performance variant of the manufacturer’s model. What I need to consider is whether the car was of satisfactory quality when it was supplied. And in order to do that, I first need to consider whether the car developed a fault. Had the car developed a fault? I don’t think it is in dispute here that the car had faults to it. I say this because MotoNovo has partially upheld Mr M’s complaint in relation to issues that an independent inspection had found, which are to the car’s exhaust flap, parking sensor and the rattle being heard. As

-- 2 of 6 --

these issues aren’t in dispute, I will focus my findings on those issues which MotoNovo hasn’t upheld. Fuel leaking into the engine and oil dilution – I have noted that a diagnostic completed to the car in April 2025, after Mr M had driven it for less than 1,900 miles, suspected there to be fuel leaking into the car’s engine. On the other hand, an independent inspection carried out to the car in August 2025 didn’t think there had been any issues with the engine oil in the car. However, I have noted that Mr M performed an engine oil change before the inspection was carried out. And I’m mindful the inspection didn’t investigate the issue with the fuel leaking into the engine in thorough detail, as has been completed by further diagnostics and investigations after the inspection by the third-party manufacturer garage. In October 2025, it was found that the oil pump actuator and wiring harness in the sump was faulty and required replacement. While I appreciate that I am no expert mechanic, from a general search online, my understanding is that a faulty oil pump valve and actuator can lead to fuel related issues, such as contamination of oil with fuel. And considering this corroborates other information supplied, I’m satisfied that the car did have a fault to the car’s oil pump valve and actuator, and this was likely the reason fuel odour could be smelt in the car’s engine oil as early as April 2025. The car’s brakes – From the information supplied I’m not satisfied there is a fault in relation to them. While I appreciate from what I have seen that the issue may be due to a scratch to the brake disc or possibly from debris, no evidence has been supplied to suggest that there is a fault with them or that they were supplied to Mr M in an unroadworthy condition. And so it follows that I don’t think there is a fault with the car’s brakes because of the squealing sound Mr M says he heard. Auxiliary drive belt – In July 2025, before 3,000 miles had been driven in the car by Mr M, he had the auxiliary drive belt replaced, and a full inspection carried out to the pulleys and tensioners as a preventative measure. I’m not satisfied this was a fault or defect with the car under the CRA, and I think it was rather a maintenance issue, caused by general wear and tear to components. I say this because, from my understanding from a general search online, an auxiliary belt should typically be inspected every 40,000 – 60,000 miles, for signs of wear. And I can see this is when the replacement of it occurred. I think it’s reasonable to assume that when acquiring a used car, some repairs or maintenance may be required, even shortly after the point of supply. And in this instance, I’m not satisfied there was a fault with the auxiliary belt or an issue with its durability. Was the car of satisfactory quality at the point of supply? The issues the independent inspection had identified – Given that MotoNovo has already accepted liability for these issues, and the findings of the independent inspection suggested that they were likely present or developing at the point of supply, as they were identified within around 3,000 miles, I’m satisfied they meant the car wasn’t supplied of satisfactory quality. The oil pump valve, actuator and wiring harness – Considering I’m satisfied that the symptoms Mr M experienced as early as April 2025, when the car had been driven less than 2,000 miles were as a result of this fault that a manufacturer garage identified, I’m satisfied that it was likely present or developing at the point of supply. It follows that I’m satisfied it meant the car wasn’t supplied to Mr M of satisfactory quality.

-- 3 of 6 --

Remedies under the CRA What I now need to consider is whether the offer MotoNovo made to Mr M was fair and reasonable to put things right, or if it needs to do anything further. MotoNovo offered to cover the cost of repairs based on the quotes Mr M had supplied to them, in relation to the issues identified in the independent inspection. These being: • The car’s rear exhaust flap, which required securing. A quote had been supplied for £216 for these repairs. • The car’s nearside front parking sensor, which required replacement. A quote had been supplied for £399 for these repairs. The independent inspection also found an issue with a metallic rattle coming from the front of the car, consistent with an engine mount issue. It isn’t clear if MotoNovo also offered to reimburse these costs, as I can’t see a quote in relation to it. In the circumstances, I think MotoNovo’s offer to cover the cost of repairs is fair and reasonable, given that I think these faults mean the car wasn’t supplied to Mr M of satisfactory quality. And that also includes any investigation or repairs required to the metallic rattle coming from the front of the car. Mr M has also supplied a quote for repairs to be carried out to the car’s oil pump valve, actuator and engine wiring. I think it is fair and reasonable for MotoNovo to cover the cost of these repairs, given I’m satisfied these faults meant the car wasn’t supplied to Mr M of satisfactory quality. MotoNovo has also offered to reimburse Mr M 10% of repayments made from April 2025, due to his loss of use and enjoyment. I think this is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and should be reimbursed up until repairs are completed, so long as they are completed within a reasonable amount of time from acceptance of this decision. Other costs Mr M has incurred costs in having diagnostics completed on the car at his own expense. My understanding is that one diagnostic was completed on 25 April 2025 at a cost of £99.50; and another diagnostic completed on 17 October 2025 at a cost of £199.99 I think it is fair and reasonable these costs incurred are reimbursed to Mr M, as these diagnostics were completed to either identify issues with the car or to produce quotes which MotoNovo required. To be clear, these amounts should only be reimbursed to Mr M if he is able to show MotoNovo that payment was made by him. Mr M believes the car was misrepresented to him Mr M also complains that a misrepresentation was made in relation to the car’s ECU and that the car was supplied and financed on the basis that it was a stock calibrated ECU. The CRA explains, in summary, that goods supplied must match the description given. Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“S56”) is also relevant to this complaint. S56 explains that, under certain circumstances, a finance provider is liable for what was said by a credit broker or supplier before a credit agreement is entered into. I’m satisfied S56 applies here. So, I can consider what Mr M says he was told about the car and finance by the dealer before he entered into the contract.

-- 4 of 6 --

What I need to consider here is whether the car didn’t meet a description or was misrepresented to Mr M. A misrepresentation would have taken place if Mr M was told a ‘false statement of fact’ about the car, and this induced him into entering into the contract to acquire it when he otherwise would not have. It’s worth stating up front, that a misrepresentation would not have occurred if Mr M wasn’t explicitly told about the modification to the ECU. A false statement of fact would need to be made – so I’ll consider if Mr M was told that the car did not have a modification to the car’s ECU or was told it was ‘standard’. The same applies when considering if the car matched a description – the ECU would need to be described as not being modified or incorrect details given about the ECU, rather than a description not being given, for this to be the case. In this instance, no information has been supplied by either party to suggest Mr M was told that the car has been supplied with a standard ECU, or that it didn’t have a modified ECU. Mr M says that prior to accepting delivery, he explicitly asked the sales representative whether the car was stock and unmodified and was assured it was. However, I’m not persuaded by what Mr M has said here. I think, had Mr M solely acquired the car due to being assured it wasn’t modified, then I think it would be reasonable to assume that this would be checked relatively immediately after the point of supply. Together, with no evidence supplied to suggest otherwise, I’m not satisfied that a false statement of fact was made here. It follows that I don’t think a misrepresentation was made to Mr M in relation to the car’s ECU. And the same logic can be applied as to why I think the car wasn’t misdescribed. Distress and inconvenience MotoNovo offered Mr M £350 for the distress and inconvenience this complaint has caused him. In the circumstances, and considering the impact this complaint has had on him, I’m satisfied that this is a fair and reasonable amount to pay. Mr M has also raised some other concerns in relation to the agreement he took out with MotoNovo. I make no finding on the matter and direct Mr M to MotoNovo in the first instance. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold this complaint and I instruct MotoNovo Finance Limited to put things right by doing the following: • Pay for the repairs that are required to the car. These being repairs to the parking sensor and exhaust flap (which MotoNovo has already agreed to); to the oil pump solenoid, actuator, and wiring harness; and to investigate matters into the rattle coming from the front of the car. * • Reimburse Mr M 10% of repayments made towards the agreement from when faults with the car were first identified in April 2025, up until when the repairs are carried out. * • Reimburse Mr M £99.50 for the cost of the diagnostic test completed on the car on 25 April 2025. This should be paid to Mr M on production of evidence to MotoNovo to show that payment was made by him. * • Reimburse Mr M £199.99 for the cost of the diagnostic test completed on the car on 17 October 2025. This should be paid to Mr M on production of evidence to MotoNovo to show that payment was made by him. * • Pay Mr M £350 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused, if they have not done so already.

-- 5 of 6 --

* These amounts should have 8% simple yearly interest added from the time of payment to the time of reimbursement. If MotoNovo considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to withhold income tax from the interest, it should tell Mr M how much it’s taken off. It should also give Mr M a tax deduction certificate if they ask for one, so they can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue and Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 6 April 2026. Ronesh Amin Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --