Admiral Financial Services Limited · DRN-6261861

The complaint Mrs B is unhappy with the quality of the car supplied under the hire purchase agreement with Admiral Financial Services Limited (Admiral). Mrs B also said the car has been misrepresented to her and she is unhappy with the customer service she has received. When I refer to what Mrs B and/or Admiral said or did, it should also be taken to include things said or done on their behalf. What happened In September 2025 Mrs B entered into a hire purchase agreement with Admiral to acquire a used car that was first registered in February 2019. At the time, the car had travelled around 51,600 miles. The cash price of the car was around £19,790 and Mrs B paid a deposit of £837.63. The duration of the agreement was 60 months with 59 monthly repayments of £411.14 followed by a final repayment of £412.14 on or before 1 October 2030 (which was to include the Option to Purchase Fee, if Mrs B wished to exercise her option to buy the car). In summary, Mrs B said that within 30 minutes of supply the car’s engine management light illuminated during the drive home. Following this it had been identified that the car had: - Two perished tyres; - Two further tyres significantly worn; - Blocked DPF requiring replacement; - Turbo boost pressure fault; - Radiator shutter fault; - Battery excessive resistance; - Boost pipe leaks; - AdBlue / emissions system issues; Mrs B also said the car has been misrepresented to her because it was advertised as having: - Front and rear parking sensors; - Tyre pressure repair kit; - Full service history; - Alloys in excellent condition; However, Mrs B said that no parking sensors were fitted and no up-to-date tyre kit was supplied. The service history did not match the advert (missing 2024 history), the alloys were scratched and the dealership could not evidence claimed services. Mrs B said that the supply dealership and Admiral made some contradicting statements. Mrs B is also unhappy as, she said, that no reasonable adjustments were made due to her family situation. She is also unhappy because at collection she was suddenly told that she owed £1,000 cash plus a £199 administration fee. However, she said, the finance was switched to Admiral. She said that the credit agreement had only her electronic signature. She also noted that her dealings with the supply dealership raise legitimate concerns

-- 1 of 5 --

regarding whether her consent was fully informed and freely given, and raise further questions about transparency and fairness of the finance introduction, appropriateness of switching finance providers under pressure, and compliance with Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)’s Consumer Duty. Mrs has also mentioned that she is unhappy with Admiral’s complaint handling. Some of this, she said, included: her emails being ignored for extended period of time, incorrect information repeatedly given, evidence dismissed or overlooked, complaint controlled by a single advisor, and lack of a response from the complaints manager, despite assurances. Mrs B is also unhappy she did not receive her final response on time. She said that she would like full reimbursement of all costs incurred as a result of the car faults, compensation for the financial and non-financial impact, including loss of use of the car, disruption to work, childcare and caring duties, and stress caused by Admiral’s mishandling of her complaint. On 30 December 2025, Admiral wrote again to Mrs B and they said they are upholding certain aspects of her complaint regarding the issues with the DPF. Admiral said the car advert shows it was advertised with front and rear parking sensors, and the third-party garage confirmed no parking sensors are fitted so they also upheld this aspect of her complaint. As such, they said they would collect the car, close the agreement at no cost to Mrs B and update her credit file. In addition, they said they we will make a payment to Mrs B in the amount of £1,822.46. This is to include: - £837.63 refund of the deposit she paid at the time of sale; - £411.14 refund of one monthly payment made; - £70 refund of the diagnostic fee; - £232.66 refund for the two perished tyres; - £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. They said they will add 8% statutory interest on some of the refunded amounts and are happy to consider any loss of use Mrs B experienced whilst the car was under investigation and repairs, once she confirms the dates. However, they said they will retain one monthly payment for the 1,000 miles Mrs B covered in the car. Admiral said that they would not refund the road tax and insurance costs, as these are costs that are associated with the car whether it is faulty or fault-free. Mrs B remained unhappy. As such, she referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (Financial Ombudsman). Our investigator looked at Mrs B’s complaint. The investigator was of the opinion that Admiral proposed a fair and reasonable resolution and they were not required to take any further action in relation to her complaint. Mrs B did not agree. As a result, the complaint has been 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. Where evidence is unclear or in dispute, I reach my findings on the balance of probabilities – which is to say, what I consider most likely to have happened based on the evidence available and the surrounding circumstances.

-- 2 of 5 --

Mrs B has provided a lot of information and I have considered all of it, however, I have summarised this complaint very briefly, in less detail than has been provided, and largely in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. If there is something I have not mentioned, I have not ignored it. I have not commented on every individual detail. But I have focused on those that are central to me, reaching what I think is the right outcome. This reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. I am only considering the aspects Admiral are responsible for, so I cannot look at certain actions and/or inactions of the dealership/broker or the warranty company which Mr P might be unhappy about. As such, in this decision I only focused on the aspects I can look into. And, I am only looking at the events that have been raised by Mrs B with Admiral, the ones they had an opportunity to address on 30 December 2025. Also, I cannot look at certain actions and/or inactions of Admiral which Mrs B might be unhappy about, such as issues that may be solely about complaint handling, which in itself is not a regulated activity that can be considered by the Financial Ombudsman. However, I can look at Mrs B’s complaint about the customer service she received which is ancillary to her overall dissatisfaction with how she had been treated by Admiral in respect to her potential customer relationship with them as a provider of a credit product. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) covers agreements such as the one Mrs B entered into. Under this agreement, there is an implied term that the goods supplied will be of satisfactory quality. The CRA says that goods will be considered of satisfactory quality where they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory – taking into account the description of the goods, the price paid, and other relevant circumstances. I think in this case those relevant circumstances include, but are not limited to, the age and mileage of the car and the cash price. The CRA says the quality of the goods includes their general state and condition, as well as other things like their fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety, and durability. In Mrs B’s case the car was used when she acquired it, with a cash price of £19,790. It had covered around 51,600 miles and was more than six years old when she acquired it. With second-hand cars, it is more likely parts will need to be replaced sooner or be worn faster than with a brand-new car. And Admiral would not be responsible for anything that was due to normal wear and tear whilst in Mrs B’s possession. However, given the age, mileage and price paid, I think it is fair to say that a reasonable person would have high expectations of it and would not expect anything significant to be wrong shortly after it was acquired. I understand that there were a few issues with the car early on from supply. However, I do not think I need to go into significant detail determining whether the car was of satisfactory quality as Admiral has already agreed to collect the car, close the agreement at no cost to Mrs B and update her credit file due to the car being of unsatisfactory quality. Also, Mrs B has raised many points about why the car was misrepresented to her. Admiral is not disputing this element of the complaint either which, I think, is reasonable as the car was advertised with certain features it did not have, such as front and rear parking sensors. I know there are other reasons why Mrs B also thinks that the car has been misrepresented but I do not need to consider the other elements, as I am satisfied this aspect alone means the car was misrepresented. Given that neither side is disputing the fact that the car was unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply and was misrepresented to Mrs B, I have only looked at whether the redress proposed by Admiral is fair and reasonable.

-- 3 of 5 --

As such, I have considered what both sides have said, and I have considered the total amount of compensation Admiral offered to pay Mrs B. Based on everything, I do not think what Admiral have proposed is unreasonable. The remedy for misrepresentation is usually recission of the contract to put the consumer back in the position they would have been in, had it not been for the false statement. It is not to give the consumer the benefit of the false statement. However, as time passed, Mrs B continued to use the car, putting miles on it (around 1,400 miles). As such, in this case, I think recission of the contract is not the most fair and reasonable solution at the current stage. I have also looked at a remedy for breach of contract, namely for goods which are not as described. The requirement for goods to be as described is implied into the contract between Mrs B and Admiral by the CRA. Under the CRA where such a term is breached, this provides Mrs B several remedies including repair, replacement, or monetary awards such as damages. So, I considered what the right remedy is, and I also thought about what both sides have said. I have considered that a repair or replacement are most likely not practical remedies at this stage. I say this because on more than one occasion, the supplying dealership already tried to fix the car, so a repair seems unreasonable at this stage. Also I think, most likely, it would not be easy to replace the car with a similar one with front parking sensors, and I think this process would, most likely, cause Mrs B further inconvenience. In addition, the car was also of unsatisfactory quality. As such, I think now the most fair and reasonable option is for Mrs B to be able to reject the car. Admiral already offered to collect the car from wherever it is located at no cost to Mrs B. Mrs B has been able to use the car, so I think it is reasonable she pays for this use. As such, I think it would be fair for Admiral to keep one payment made by Mrs B, and refund all remaining payments that have been made. This is fair and reasonable because Mrs B has received at least one month’s use of the car and she has travelled around 1,400 miles in it. Finally, the settlement date and collection of the car should not be unreasonably delayed by either side from here onwards. To be clear what I am saying is that Admiral’s offer in the final response letter dated 30 December 2025 is fair and reasonable. Hence, I agree that they should make a payment to Mrs B in the amount of £1,822.46, which is to include: - £837.63 refund of the deposit she paid at the time of sale; - £411.14 refund of one monthly payment made; - £70 refund for the diagnostic fee; - £232.66 refund for the two perished tyres; - £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. They said they will add 8% statutory interest on some of the refunded amounts, and are happy to consider any loss of use Mrs B experienced whilst the car was under investigation and repairs, once she confirms the dates. Normally, I would have considered if Admiral should pay 8% on all refunded amounts from date of payment to date of settlement but I think it is only fair and reasonable that they need to only pay the 8% as they have suggested in their letter. I say this because the redress they proposed is fair and reasonable and it was Mrs B who has delayed the process by not letting Admiral collect the car and action the redress. As such, it would not be fair and reasonable that they should be responsible to keep paying 8% beyond the date of their final response letter.

-- 4 of 5 --

In addition, it is not clear if Admiral is adding the 8% to the refund of the tyres, but even if they are not I do not think that is unreasonable as I think the £250 they are proposing to pay for the distress and inconvenience more than covers the 8% on those plus the impact this situation had on Mrs B. I know that Mrs B has also mentioned that this situation had caused her a lot of distress and inconvenience while trying to resolve it. Mrs B had to take the car for repairs and spend time trying to resolve this issue. I think Mrs B would not have experienced all of this, had Admiral supplied her with a car that was of a satisfactory quality and had the misrepresentation not happened. However, having reviewed the case, I think £250 Admiral have already offered to pay Mrs B for the distress and inconvenience caused is also fair and reasonable, as it more than takes into consideration the impact this situation had on her. And overall when looking at Mrs B’s complaint, I did consider the FCA Consumer Duty, as Mrs B feels that she has not been treated well by Admiral. However, I think I have not seen enough evidence that would allow me to say that it would be fair and reasonable to ask Admiral to do anything more than what they have already offered. While I sympathise with Mrs B for all the difficulties she is experiencing, based on all the information available in this case, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to say that, most likely, Admiral should be required to take any further action regarding her complaint, except for what they have already offered in their correspondence dated 30 December 2025. My final decision For the reasons given above, I direct Admiral Financial Services Limited to: 1. End the hire purchase agreement; 2. Collect the car from wherever it is located without charging for the collection; 3. Pay Mrs B £1,822.46 which incudes: a. £837.63 refund of the deposit she paid; b. £411.14 refund of one monthly payment made (unless there were more payments made then ensuring Mrs B is not liable for more than one monthly repayment. Any overpayments should be refunded to her; c. £70 refund of the diagnostic fee; d. £232.66 refund for the two perished tyres; e. £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused; f. 8% simple interest (£21.03); 4. Pay any loss of use Mrs B experienced whilst the car was under investigation and repairs, once she confirms the dates; 5. Remove any adverse information recorded on Mrs B’s credit file in relation to this credit agreement. The credit agreement should be marked as settled in full on her credit file, or something similar, and should not show as voluntary termination. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Mike Kozbial Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --