BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited · DRN-6262345

The complaint Mr W complains that a car supplied to him under a hire purchase agreement with BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited trading as ALPHERA Financial Services is of unsatisfactory quality. What happened In February 2025 Mr W entered into a hire purchase agreement with BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited trading as ALPHERA Financial Services (AFS) to purchase a used car. The car was around three years old and had travelled around 29,181 miles. The cash price of the car was £25,285.00 with a deposit of £1,000.00 being paid. The total amount repayable on the agreement was £33,649.72 payable by 48 monthly payments. This was to be followed by an optional final payment of £12,795.00. Mr W explained that around a few months into the agreement, he reported a noise coming from the vehicle to the broker involved in the sale and wanted it investigated. An appointment was made, with Mr W travelling some distance to it, only to find out the appointment couldn’t be completed and shouldn’t have been booked. Over time, Mr W explained he continued to try to have the vehicle looked at, and contacted AFS as he wasn’t having any success. In June. Mr W explained he contacted Afs to reject the vehicle as he still hadn’t had it sorted. As time went on, the vehicle had still not been seen in July 2025, and Mr W brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service as AFS had not been able to provide a final response. AFS did then provide its final response to the complaint in September 2025. AFS stated there was no current right to reject the vehicle, and the dealership should be given the opportunity to investigate and repair. AFS also confirmed a booking had been made for Mr W’s vehicle on 23 September 2025. AFS also offered Mr W £250.00 for any distress and inconvenience caused due to level of service and communication. Mr W was unhappy with the final response, and couldn’t make the arranged appointment, with the vehicle eventually being seen in October 2025, where it was inspected, and a repair was attempted. Mr W explained this did not fix the issue as it returned soon after, and still wanted to reject the vehicle. Mr W continued his complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service, where it was passed to one of our investigators. The investigator upheld the complaint. They explained that the repairs had taken an unreasonable amount of time, and that they hadn’t worked as Mr W encountered the issue again soon after. The investigator explained that because of this, Mr W was now within his rights to reject the vehicle.

-- 1 of 4 --

AFS did not agree with the outcome. It stated not enough consideration was given to the repair being carried out by a main dealer, with a staged repair taking place. AFS also explained a rejection of the vehicle is disproportionate. Mr W agreed with the investigator’s outcome. As AFS’ comments did not change the investigator’s outcome, I’ve been asked to review the complaint to make a final decision. As a note I can see some further issues about the vehicle were raised by Mr W, however AFS had not had the opportunity to investigate and respond to these and as such they will not form party of this 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. 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 W acquired a car under a hire purchase agreement. Entering into consumer credit contracts like this is a regulated activity, so I’m satisfied we can consider Mr W’s complaint about AFS. AFS 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. In this case, Mr W acquired a car that was around three years old and had travelled around 29,181 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 W experienced with the car. Based on what I’ve seen, I’m satisfied that there was a fault with the car. I say this because neither AFS nor Mr W dispute the vehicle had an issue with the bump stops and a noise from that area. I’ve also seen invoices from an independent repairer and a manufacturer linked repairer in relation to work carried out in this area. Having considered the car had a fault, I’ve considered whether it was of satisfactory quality at the time of supply. Due to when the issue was encountered and reported, there appears to be no dispute from AFS that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied. I’m also persuaded that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied. I say this due to the

-- 2 of 4 --

short timeframe from purchase to reporting of the issue, and that this has been accepted within the first six months of the agreement for repair. As such this decision will not focus on this area, but the crux of the complaint which is has AFS done enough to resolve the issues or does Mr W have the right to reject the vehicle. Having examined all of the available information, I’m persuaded that Mr W does now have the right to reject the vehicle. I say this because under the CRA, repairs must be carried out within a reasonable time. I do not consider the time from when Mr W reported the issue, to when the vehicle was seen the first time to have been reasonable for the type of repair that was attempted. I’ve also taken into account that this repair did not resolve the issue for Mr W. I acknowledge AFS explaining this was a staged repair, with the bump stops being greased, with Mr W being told to monitor and return if further issues persisted. However, I’m not sure this is reasonable. The manufacturer linked repairer appears to have carried out this repair as it thought that is what is needed. The noise went away, and then was reported soon after again. Mr W has provided a diagnostic invoice from an independent repairer explaining the noise has been heard, and the parts that need replacing to resolve the issue. The invoice provided by the manufacturer linked repairer does not indicate a staged repair, but states it heard the noise, silicone greased and road tested, with the noise no longer present. No follow up appointment was booked. Correspondence following these events also discuss with Mr W the option of rejecting the vehicle. Even if Mr W is told to monitor and return if the issue comes back, I’m still not persuaded given the entire sequence of events and the timeframe taken, that this is a reasonable fix either with an independent garage having identified an issue in the same area with a different repair required. I acknowledge this repair was attempted by a manufacturer linked repairer as pointed out by AFS, however I’m persuaded that the repair hasn’t worked, and that the repairs themselves were not carried out within a reasonable time. I haven’t seen anything that persuades me the length of time taken to arrange the vehicle to be seen to was the sole responsibility of Mr W, with Mr W having to chase updates at times on what is happening with the vehicle. So whilst I acknowledge what AFS have said about the repair, however I’m persuaded an opportunity to repair was granted, and even if the repair was designed to be staged over more than one appointment, the repairs to Mr W’s vehicle have not taken place within a reasonable time for the reasons outlined above. It then follows that I’m persuaded Mr W now has a right to reject the vehicle as laid out by the CRA. Putting things right As I’ve outlined why I’m persuaded it is fair that Mr W has the right to reject the vehicle, AFS should now arrange to collect the vehicle at no cost to Mr W, and refund his deposit payment. AFS is entitled to retain any part of the deposit made up of deposit contributions if applicable. Mr W has had use of the vehicle, even whilst the vehicle has been awaiting repair. But Mr W has suffered impaired use of it due to it not being of satisfactory quality when it was supplied. As Mr W has suffered this impaired usage, I’m persuaded it is reasonable for AFS to reimburse Mr W 10% of each monthly payment made whilst the vehicle has been of unsatisfactory quality, covering when the issue was reported by Mr W around 15 May 2025, up until the date of settlement.

-- 3 of 4 --

Mr W has been able to use the vehicle albeit impaired, and as such it is fair that he pays for this usage. Mr W also appears to have been kept mobile whilst his vehicle was in for the attempted repairs. As such I would not direct AFS to refund any further instalments other than outlined above. Alongside this, I considered if a payment for distress and inconvenience was relevant. Mr W has explained that impact the situation has had on him, with issues communicating, trying to have the vehicle seen to, attending an appointment that was unsuccessful, trying to chase for updates and the concern he had driving in a vehicle that had an issue. I’m persuaded it is fair for AFS to now pay Mr W £350.00 for distress and inconvenience caused due to the issues, and the impact these had on him over this time. My final decision For the reasons explained, I uphold Mr W’s complaint and instruct BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited trading as ALPHERA Financial Services to do the following: • End the agreement with nothing further to pay in relation to the monthly payments. • Arrange to collect the vehicle at no cost to Mr W. • Refund Mr W’s deposit as outlined above. • Reimburse Mr W a portion of some monthly instalments as outlined above. • Pay 8% simple yearly interest* on the above, to be calculated from when Mr W made the payments to the date of the refund. • Pay Mr W £350.00 for distress and inconvenience caused by these issues as outlined above. • remove any incorrect adverse information from Mr W’s credit file in relation to the agreement if applicable. *HM Revenue & Customs requires BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited trading as ALPHERA Financial Services to deduct tax from the interest amount. BMW Financial Services(GB) Limited trading as ALPHERA Financial Services should give Mr W a certificate showing how much tax it has deducted if he asks for one. Mr W can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Jack Evans Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --