Ms M – Complaint Against Motonovo

Ms A bought a used car for £11,940 from a trader by way of a regulated hire purchase agreement with Motonovo through a third party broker.

A month or so after delivery, Ms A reported the vehicle suspension spring required replacement, a suspected oil leak repair, a noisy heater, air conditioning functional issues, anti-roll bar link(s) worn, Sat Nav malfunction and a gearbox fault.

The supplying dealer collected the vehicle to carry out the remedial repairs; a month later the repairs were said to have been completed and the vehicle returned.

However, the repairs had not been successful, and the vehicle was returned to the seller for some time before being submitted to a gearbox specialist who undertook repairs. Once completed the vehicle was delivered back to Ms A. The repairs were once again unsuccessful. Ms A rejected the vehicle which was sent back to the seller, who refused the rejection. Stormcatcher was instructed by Ms A.

Motonovo declined the rejection claim and the matter was referred to the Financial Ombudsman, who did not uphold the complaint on the basis that the vehicle had 92,000 miles and it being reasonable to expect the car to have some level of wear and tear.

The Ombudsman conceded that the repairs should be carried out within a reasonable time frame. However, they were of the opinion that Ms A accepted the vehicle with the sat-nav fault and there was an agreement between her and the dealership that this would be fixed at a later date. Furthermore, it was considered that this agreement would be considered separate to the hire purchase agreement and was simply between Ms A and the dealership.

This analysis was incorrect and we appealed it, as the agreement to repair the Sat Nav was an express term of the contract which was breached. Additionally, while the vehicle was not new and had covered nearly 100 000 miles, there was evidence of a gearbox oil leak at the point of sale and although the final rejection occurred outside 6 months, it was clear that the issue was present or developing.

The Financial Ombudsman did not agree with the initial investigator’s opinion and accepted our analysis, resulting in Ms A being allowed to reject the vehicle and the finance agreement unwound, the deposit and a proportion of the finance payment refunded.