STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED · DRN-6214366

The complaint Mr R complains that STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED (SMF) unfairly repossessed and sold his vehicle without his consent. What happened The circumstances surrounding this complaint and my initial findings were set out in my provisional decision which said: In December 2023, Mr R acquired a used car through a hire purchase agreement with SMF. The car was around seven years old and had travelled 72,417 miles when it was supplied. The cash price of the car was £13,244. Mr R was due to make 59 repayments of £356.70 and a final repayment of £366.70. Mr R complained about the quality of the car. This was reviewed by this service, and an adjudication was issued recommending that the car be repaired. Mr R later raised a further complaint about the delay in completing the repairs. He said the car wasn’t collected until December 2024, despite the recommendation for repairs being made in September 2024. He explained that the car was never returned to him – instead, he discovered it had been surrendered through repossession and sold at auction. Mr R said this was forced and unfair. Mr R also complained about the lack of clarity regarding the repairs. He said he wasn’t given job cards and questioned whether the correct scope of work had been completed. He added that he experienced ongoing financial impact following the failure of the car in March 2024 and its subsequent repossession. In July 2024, SMF issued their final response to Mr R’s complaint. In summary, it confirmed the previous adjudication from this service regarding the quality of the vehicle — which both parties had accepted — and included the following recommendations: • SMF should arrange and cover the cost of repairs to the timing chain and turbocharger. • Pay a refund of rentals for loss of use. • Pay a refund for additional expenses. • Pay £250 in compensation. SMF said that when attempting to collect the vehicle, it incurred storage charges. They said the vehicle became available in December 2024, and the collection agency reported that Mr R refused to release it. SMF also said that Mr R requested reimbursement of charges that went beyond the adjudication. SMF said the repairs were completed in January 2025, and arrangements were being made

-- 1 of 6 --

to return the vehicle to Mr R. They confirmed that Mr R later emailed them to say he had acquired a new car and had rejected the original one. At that point, SMF considered all aspects of the adjudication settled; however, they said Mr R’s agreement was in arrears. SMF said that despite their attempts, Mr R didn’t appear to be addressing the arrears on his agreement or the return of the vehicle to him. They said they therefore had no option but to repossess the vehicle and sell it at auction, applying the proceeds to the agreement, with the remaining balance left for Mr R to pay. Unhappy with SMF’s outcome, Mr R brought his complaint to this service, where it was passed to one of our investigators to review. In their file submission, SMF said they covered the repayments under the agreement up to February 2025. However, they didn’t consider it reasonable to continue doing so as the car had been repaired and was ready for return. SMF said the arrears continued from March 2025. In October 2025, the investigator issued their view recommending that Mr R’s complaint be upheld. The investigator concluded that SMF hadn’t completed all of the required repairs, and therefore Mr R should be entitled to reject the car. Mr R accepted the investigator’s view. SMF did not. They asked for the complaint to be referred to an ombudsman for a final decision. SMF said they had complied with the previous adjudication, that the car had been repaired, and that it had passed an MOT in February 2025. They said there was no evidence the vehicle hadn’t been successfully repaired. They also noted that the independent inspection highlighted what may need repair but said further investigation would be required; following their own inspection, they determined certain components didn’t need to be replaced. I sent Mr R and SMF my provisional decision in February 2026. I explained why I didn’t think 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. In considering what is fair and reasonable, I’ve thought about all the evidence and information provided afresh and the relevant law and regulations, regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and (where appropriate) what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is 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 what I think is the right outcome. Mr R complains about a hire purchase agreement. Entering into consumer credit contracts like this is a regulated activity, so I’m satisfied we can consider Mr R’s complaint about SMF. SMF is also the supplier of the goods under this agreement, and is responsible for a complaint about their quality.

-- 2 of 6 --

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. My starting point is that this service previously assessed a complaint about the quality of the vehicle Mr R acquired from SMF in December 2023. The complaint was upheld, and part of the recommendation was that SMF should arrange and cover the cost of repairs. The repairs in question stemmed from an independent inspection report completed in August 2024. In the section titled "parts needing replacement”, the report advised: “Timing chain kit, possible turbocharger replacement but further investigation would be required to confirm.” The assessment recommended that SMF cover the repairs to both the timing chain and turbocharger. The investigator in this complaint concluded that SMF hadn’t carried out the recommended repairs. Instead, they carried out repairs to the battery and turbo actuator, and there was no evidence explaining why the timing chain replacement was deemed unnecessary. In response, SMF said that after investigating the issues, they determined replacement of those components wasn’t required. Based on the evidence, I’m satisfied that SMF didn’t follow the recommendations made in the previous assessment. I’m also satisfied that once the car was collected for repair in December 2024, it was never returned to Mr R. Instead, it was auctioned and the proceeds applied to the agreement. This is not disputed. Mr R says he never received the car back; SMF says they sold it because he declined to accept it. So, I’ve considered whether the car was suitably repaired, and whether SMF acted fairly in deciding to repossess and auction the vehicle. The independent inspection report noted: “We did observe faults in the form of a rattle from the engine at start-up, consistent with a timing chain issue, and the engine being unresponsive when revving, consistent with a turbocharger issue.” It also stated that further investigation would be required to confirm the repairs needed. I think it was reasonable that, before carrying out any mechanical repairs, a mechanic would undertake a full investigation to determine exactly what was required. SMF said the report clearly stated that further investigation was necessary to ascertain whether components needed replacing. They said that, following a full inspection, they determined the components did not require replacement and that the vehicle was fully repaired and functional. Mr R said he didn’t receive clarity about the repairs, but an email to him from the dealership in January 2025 set out what had been completed, what was replaced, and confirmed that the car was driving as expected. The dealership also offered to arrange another independent inspection for Mr R’s reassurance. It doesn’t appear that Mr R accepted this offer, and it’s unclear why.

-- 3 of 6 --

However, I’m persuaded from the information provided that Mr R declined to collect the car once repairs were completed. I’m also aware the car passed an MOT in February 2025. While an MOT wouldn’t necessarily test the timing chain, I’m satisfied the pass indicates the car was in a roadworthy condition. Taking everything into account, I don’t think it was unreasonable for further investigations to be carried out and it isn’t unusual for repairs to differ from the initial suggestions made in an inspection report—especially where the report itself recommended further investigation. I didn’t consider it would have been appropriate for SMF to carry out mechanical repairs solely on the basis of the inspection report without further investigation. The key requirement in the original adjudication was that the car be repaired. At that time, the only evidence of a fault was the suggestion in the independent inspection report. SMF says the repairs were completed. However, because Mr R never collected the vehicle, he wasn’t able to confirm whether the car had been satisfactorily repaired. SMF provided evidence that Mr R continued to miss repayments after the repair, and I consider this partly due to him having acquired another vehicle. Given the circumstances, I think it was reasonable for SMF to repossess and auction the car, applying the proceeds to the agreement. I don’t consider that SMF were required to continue covering repayments for Mr R or to replace components they didn’t consider were necessary. Mr R also complained about delays to the repair. However, based on SMF’s explanation, I’m persuaded that different parties were involved and that the vehicle was collected within a timeframe that wasn’t significantly unreasonable. I’m satisfied it was collected within a few months of the adjudication, without undue charges to Mr R, and that the repairs were carried out. After considering all the information and evidence, I’m satisfied that the car was repaired following a further investigation, as advised by the inspection report, and that it was made available for Mr R to collect. In light of this, I don’t intend to uphold this complaint and I don’t require SMF to take any further action. I consider that SMF are acting reasonably in expecting Mr R to settle the outstanding balance on his agreement following the repossession and auction of the vehicle. I invited both parties to make any further comments. Mr R responded to say that he didn’t accept my provisional decision. He made some further comments which I’ll address below. However, now both sides have had an opportunity to comment, I can go ahead with my final decision. 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. Mr R has made submissions in response to my provisional decision. I have considered all of what he has said. I’ll address what I consider to be the main points Mr R has raised and explain why these don’t change the outcome I’ve reached.

-- 4 of 6 --

In his response, Mr R said the vehicle was never repaired to a satisfactory standard, he was misled about his ability to reject it, he experienced financial hardship because of delays, and he did not consent to the vehicle’s surrender. While not exhaustive, I consider these represent the key points raised by Mr R in his submissions following my provisional decision. To be clear, I’ve considered all of the information provided by both parties, but in keeping with the informal nature of this service, I’ve focused on the issues that I’ve considered are most material to the outcome. Whether the vehicle was repaired to a satisfactory standard Mr R says there was no evidence of repair work, including job cards, and he relies on a video taken by a friend to show the vehicle remained faulty. There is, however, no requirement for SMF to provide job cards, and I have not seen evidence that they were obliged to do so. Mr R declined to collect the vehicle on the basis he believed the repairs were unsatisfactory. It was for Mr R to demonstrate that further repairs were required if he disagreed that the work had been completed. I also note that in an email dated 2 March 2026, Mr R stated that SMF took the vehicle back again following the video to carry out further checks or repairs. From the information available, it appears Mr R was not prepared to accept SMF’s assurance that the vehicle had been repaired unless certain conditions he set were met. I have reviewed the video he provided. While an engine noise can be heard, the recording is not accompanied by expert commentary or diagnostic context, and it does not of itself demonstrate that the repairs were inadequate. On the evidence provided, and in line with what I’ve already considered in my provisional findings, I’m not persuaded that the vehicle remained unrepaired or that SMF failed to act reasonably in addressing the concerns raised. Whether Mr R was misled about his right to reject the vehicle Mr R says he was misled into believing he could reject the vehicle. Offering a consumer the option to reject a vehicle if they are dissatisfied with repairs does not amount to an admission that the vehicle was faulty, nor does it establish that the option was later withdrawn. That said, I‘ve not seen conclusive evidence that SMF offered a right to reject and then prevented Mr R from exercising it. From the email correspondence provided by Mr R the discussion around the car’s rejection appears to be related to if the vehicle was still faulty following repairs, but I don’t see that it was a defined or specific offer made by SMF. Mr R also explained that SMF’s position changed in relation to certain associated costs, and that he adjusted his own position depending on how matters developed. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to conclude that SMF misled Mr R regarding rejection rights. Financial hardship The previous adjudication already considered the additional costs incurred by Mr R. Both parties accepted the recommendations made at that stage. I also understand that SMF met certain costs beyond those recommendations, including covering Mr R’s monthly repayments after the vehicle was repaired and contributing to travel expenses. As these matters have already been considered and accepted, I won’t repeat that assessment here except to note that SMF appears to have taken reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the delay. Consent was not given to the vehicle’s repossession and surrender

-- 5 of 6 --

Mr R says he did not reject the vehicle and only sought to accept it back on certain terms. I don’t consider SMF were required to meet those terms (of providing specific evidence of repairs carried out), particularly given the extended period over which the matter remained unresolved. SMF’s records state that in April 2025, Mr R advised them he’d rejected the vehicle and obtained a replacement. This was shortly after he returned from holiday. SMF said they also wrote to him at that time explaining his options to exit the agreement, which included voluntary termination and voluntary surrender. In consideration of this, I don’t consider Mr R’s actions were consistent with an intention to have the vehicle returned. Although he says he didn’t consent to the surrender, I’m satisfied in the circumstances that it was unreasonable to expect SMF to retain the vehicle indefinitely while also meeting the ongoing monthly payments. In the circumstances, I consider the voluntary surrender to have been the fairest way to bring his liability to an end. Having considered all the information available, I’m not persuaded that the evidence supports Mr R’s position regarding the repairs, rejection rights, or financial loss beyond what has already been addressed. I also consider SMF’s decision to proceed with voluntary surrender to have been reasonable in the circumstances. I still consider my provisional decision to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Neither party has added anything which gives me cause to change these. So, for the reasons as set out above and in my provisional decision, I’m satisfied that SMF have acted fairly in the circumstances. So, my final decision is the same. I recognise that this decision is likely to be disappointing for Mr R, however I can assure him that I’ve considered all the evidence provided and believe on balance that my provisional findings are fair in the circumstances. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr R’s complaint about STARTLINE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Benjamin John Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --