First Response Finance Limited · DRN-5909012

The complaint Mr D has complained about the quality of a motorbike provided on finance by First Response Finance Limited (“FRFL”). What happened Both parties are familiar with the events, so I’ll briefly summarise them here. FRFL supplied Mr D with a used motorbike on a hire purchase agreement in March 2024. The cash price of the motorbike was around £7,750 and it had covered around 20,100 miles since first registration in April 2015. The hire purchase agreement required payments of around £190 for 42 months and Mr D paid a deposit of around £2,950. The advert described the motorbike as having a full-service history and being recently serviced. Mr D said that within a couple of days of acquiring the motorbike it failed to start. He contacted the selling dealer, who I’ll call S, who paid for Mr D to replace the battery. He said the motorbike failed again a couple of days later and S arranged a collection and repair. Mr D said that S told him it was due to corroded starter connectors. Mr D took the motorbike for a pre-MOT inspection. He said this revealed a catalogue of issues. S paid for repairs which Mr D said weren’t new parts. In July 2025 Mr D said he had further difficulty starting the motorbike, so he contacted his technician, and the motorbike was recovered for diagnostics. In September 2025 Mr S complained to FRFL that he’d been supplied a motorbike that wasn’t of satisfactory quality. The mileage at this point was around 20,700. FRFL said it needed some independent evidence of the fault. The diagnostic identified an issue with the ECU but ultimately FRFL did not uphold the complaint. Mr D referred his complaint to our service. He said that he’d experienced ongoing repair and diagnostic costs, loss of use and additional transport costs. He also said that the issues meant the motorbike had depreciated and the repair history now negatively affected its resale value. He said he wanted to reject the motorbike and end the finance agreement. An investigator here looked at the complaint. She initially said that there wasn’t sufficient evidence that there was a fault which made the motorbike of unsatisfactory quality. She later reviewed matters and said that there was evidence of a failed repair or a lack of durability. She recommended that the agreement should end, and the motorbike should be rejected. She also said that Mr D should receive a refund of his deposit and monthly payments since the motorbiked failed, with statutory interest added. And finally, she recommended £150 compensation. Mr D agreed but FRFL disagreed; in summary it said: • There was no new expert evidence • FRFL weren’t liable for sudden mechanical issues or wear and tear • The selling garage or the price of the vehicle shouldn’t be a factor

-- 1 of 7 --

FRFL asked for the complaint to be reviewed by an ombudsman, so it was passed to me. I issued a provisional decision which said: In considering what is fair and reasonable, I need to have regard to 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 evidence submitted by both parties, but I’ll focus my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on a specific point, it isn’t because I haven’t considered it, but because I don’t think I need to comment in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. This is not intended as a discourtesy but reflects the informal nature of this service in resolving disputes. Where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive, or contradictory (as some of it is here), I reach my decision on the balance of probabilities – in other words, what I consider is most likely to have happened in light of the available evidence and the wider circumstances. The agreement in this case is a regulated consumer credit agreement. As such, this service is able to consider complaints relating to it. FRFL is also the supplier of the goods under this type of agreement, and responsible for a complaint about their quality. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) is of particular relevance to this complaint. It says that under a contract to supply goods, there is an implied term that “the quality of the goods is satisfactory.” The CRA says the quality of goods are satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory taking into account any description of the goods, the price and all the other relevant circumstances. In a case involving a motorbike, the other relevant circumstances might include things like the age and mileage at the time of supply and the motorbike’s history. The CRA says the quality of the goods includes their general state and condition and other things like their fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety, and durability. When Mr D acquired the motorbike in March 2024 the mileage was around 20,100 and the cash price was around £7,750. The motorbike was first registered in April 2015, so by this stage it was nearly nine years old. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect the motorbike to be showing some signs of wear and tear, and that might include the underlying components. There would be very different expectations of it than if it were brand-new. The price paid usually reflects the age and condition of the motorbike. But it still needed to be of satisfactory quality when it was supplied. As a starting point there would need to be some evidence of what the fault was. And secondly, that the fault renders the motorbike of unsatisfactory quality. I don’t think it is in dispute that there is evidence that there were faults with the motorbike. The CRA sets out that goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months, beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer, must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day. Unless it’s established the goods did conform to the contract on that day or that the application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract. Although FRFL were the supplier of the motorbike under the agreement, it was not aware

-- 2 of 7 --

that Mr D was experiencing any issues until he contacted it in September 2025. I understand Mr D had also contacted S and had repair(s) carried out, he’s also said that S authorised and paid for repairs at another third-party garage. Considering the description of the faults, and the time that had elapsed since supply, it wasn’t unreasonable for FRFL to ask for some independent evidence about the fault and what caused it. The issues reported could be due to damage sustained during Mr D’s possession of the motorbike, or reasonably expected wear and tear which wouldn’t be FRFL’s responsibility. Or it could point to a defect that was present at the point of supply or a failed repair. Mr D contacted FRFL just outside six months after being supplied the motorbike. But it’s clear that there had already been faults reported in the first six months. Mr D had been experiencing difficulties with the motorbike starting since the first week. I’ve noted the selling dealer didn’t acknowledge the early battery failure or that it had paid for that to be replaced. It also didn’t provide any evidence that I can see, of what checks and repairs it completed within the first six months. I appreciate that Mr D didn’t contact FRFL until the six months had just elapsed but also, I don’t think the selling dealer has supplied compelling evidence to show that the problem had been fixed, or evidence that the motorbike was sold in a satisfactory condition. I don’t think Mr D’s actions in contacting S first have prejudiced FRFL’s position as I find it more likely than not it would have directed him to S in the first instance. Mr D has also provided contemporaneous evidence that he was experiencing an intermittent starting issue in the first week and through the first six months, despite repairs. It seems likely that the ECU failed prematurely. I say this because the motorbike was sold with a full service history so it looked to have been maintained in line with the manufacturer recommendations. It seems that the ECU has experienced a sudden failure after only travelling a further 600 miles, some of which may have been achieved through testing. There is a lack of independent expert opinion on what might have caused this. I have to reach a decision on the available evidence and sometimes the issues aren’t clear cut. In this case I think that on the balance of probabilities there were problems inherent in the motorbike. The earlier issues with the battery and corroded connectors seem likely to have contributed to the failure of the ECU, rather than something that came about during Mr D’s use of the vehicle. I understand that although the ECU is designed to be robust and last the lifetime of the motorbike, it’s possible that general starting issues and poor connections might have led to the damage of its sensitive electronics. Repairs had been necessary to the battery and starter connectors. Considering this alongside the mileage Mr D completed, and the overall mileage of the motorbike, this indicates a lack of durability. So, I’m satisfied that the motorbike was not of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. But even if it could be argued that the motorbike was of satisfactory quality, I think that the goods were “not as described”. So that means that the goods didn’t conform to the contract, I’ll explain why. The CRA says that “every contract to supply goods by description is to be treated as including a term that the goods will match the description”. The advert for the motorbike (which I’ll provide with this provisional decision) clearly states that there is a full service history and that the motorbike would be serviced before supply. The evidence that I’ve seen shows that the last service was carried out in June 2023, so it didn’t have a service just before it was supplied. So, the goods are also not as described and

-- 3 of 7 --

don’t conform to the contract. I’ve thought about the right to repair or replacement. In this case, as the goods, to my mind, did not conform to the implied term of satisfactory quality or as described, Mr D had the right to ask FRFL to repair them. The CRA sets out that if the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer. Repairs were attempted by the selling dealer, and further repairs were paid for later. The CRA sets out that (outside the first 30 days) if the motorbike isn’t of satisfactory quality, or as described, there’s been a repair attempt, and the motorbike still doesn’t conform to the contract, Mr D should be able to reject it. Mr D tried to reject the motorbike, and I wouldn’t have expected him to have detailed knowledge of his rights. It seems clear that repairs have been carried out. The evidence points to the goods not being as described, and they haven’t been made to conform to the contract. So, I think that Mr D should have been and should now be able to exercise his final right to reject. FRFL should make arrangements to collect the motorbike at no cost to Mr D within a reasonable amount of time and end the agreement with nothing further to pay. Mr D should also be refunded his deposit of £2,950. Mr D hasn’t had use of the motorbike since the ECU failed, and a courtesy vehicle hasn’t been provided, but it appears that he has maintained his repayments. I don’t think it’s fair that Mr D should have to pay for a vehicle he’s been unable to use, so I’m intending on directing FRFL to refund all monthly payments made since the motorbike broke down. I don’t have clear information about the date the motorbike broke down. Mr D indicated July 2024, but he contacted FRFL in September 2024. Our investigator said payments from October 2024 should be refunded, and this corresponds with when he contacted FRFL. But if there is any further evidence then it can be provided in response to this provisional decision. If any adverse information has been reported to the credit reference agencies it should be removed. Mr D has also said he’s incurred additional costs due to the motorbike being faulty. But there’s a lot to think about when deciding whether losses should be payable in these sorts of situations. I need to think about whether the losses were directly flowing from the breach of contract; whether Mr D has tried to mitigate his losses; and whether they were reasonably foreseeable or too remote. He’s mentioned costs of repairs and diagnostics and having to insure more than one vehicle. I don’t have enough information about those potential consequential losses, and although it seems those sorts of losses might flow directly from the breach of contract, I can’t see evidence of what he has paid. But he can supply further information in response to this provisional decision, and I may make an award in my final decision. No amount of money can change what’s happened. But the compensation recommended by our investigator is in line with what’s awarded where the impact of the breach of contract has caused more than the levels of frustration you’d expect. He’s had a lot of back and forth, several repairs and has made reasonable effort to sort things out himself. Mr D agreed with our investigator’s recommendation. So, I think the compensation of £150 that’s been recommended seems suitable in the circumstances because I agree it’s had that sort of impact on Mr D. Mr D agreed with the provisional decision and didn’t provide anything further. FRFL disagreed and in summary it said:

-- 4 of 7 --

• The motorbike was sold in March 2024 and the next service wasn’t due until June 2024. So, at the time of supply, it was correct that the service history was full and up to date. • There was no requirement for an additional service to be performed before the motorbike was supplied. So, it’s not fair to say that the motorbike did not conform to the contract on this basis. • Mr D had the opportunity to review the advert prior to sale and has only raised the issue now. • There is no evidence of a link between the ECU issue and former repairs. • The legislation is clear that after the first six months it is the consumer’s responsibility to provide clear evidence of an alleged fault that was present at supply. Issues are not presumed to have been present at this point in the agreement. • Repairs were carried out in the first six months but there is no evidence link between these repairs and the current issue. This fact feels somewhat overlooked in the provisional decision, with a preference for an opinion on the balance of probabilities. FRFL are always expected to make evidence-based decisions. As I’ve received a response from both parties I’ll now go on to make 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. I’d like to thank both parties for their prompt response to the provisional decision. I’ve attempted to summarise above the submissions I’ve received from FRFL as I want it to know that I’ve carefully considered all the points it made. However, I don’t intend to address the same points again, which I addressed in my provisional decision, in as much detail. Instead, I’ve tried to concisely explain why the additional comments I’ve received since I issued my provisional decision haven’t changed my mind. FRFL are right to say that there isn’t a requirement for a service before the motorbike was supplied. I also agree that a service wouldn’t have fallen due until around June 2024, which was after the motorbike was supplied. But it’s a key fact that the advert stated: “The bike will still go through a thorough health check at an independent workshop and come with a clean bill of health for the new owner, like all my bikes do. The bike will be serviced for the new owner” I can’t ignore that the advert stated that the motorbike would be supplied with a fresh service. I think Mr D relied on that, so I’ve gone onto think about why he hasn’t laboured the point earlier. I think when he started experiencing problems with the motorbike it made him question the veracity of the service, or that it was completed at all, and he’s understandably questioned it further. There’s no evidence that the motorbike was serviced as the record book doesn’t show it. I think in this case, the servicing is a key issue which is inextricably linked to whether the motorbike was of satisfactory quality, it’s not such a distinct issue as to give rise to a new complaint. So, despite FRFL’s comments I’ve reached the same conclusion as in my provisional decision, that the motorbike did not conform to the contract as it was not as described.

-- 5 of 7 --

FRFL said that the legislation is clear that after the first six months it is the consumer’s responsibility to provide clear evidence, and it can’t be presumed to have been present at supply. The CRA says “goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have confirmed to it on that day”. It doesn’t explicitly say that it falls to the consumer to demonstrate that the faults were present or developing at supply after six months. So careful consideration needs to be given to the facts of the case. Here the description of the fault is that the ECU has failed. An ECU is designed to last the lifetime of the vehicle. It doesn’t just wear out. There have been repairs which indicated that the motorbike was not of satisfactory quality when it was supplied. But FRFL haven’t shown what those repairs were, and that it is more likely that those repairs were either unconnected or successful. Whilst it was unaware of any problems at the time I don’t think Mr D has prejudiced FRFL’s position as it likely would have directed Mr D to the selling dealer in the first instance. Mr D has only driven around 600 miles which doesn’t seem to show that he’s had much use. Where matters aren’t clear cut, I’m still required to make a decision on the balance of probabilities. Deciding matters beyond reasonable doubt isn’t necessary, I need to consider all of the facts and decide what I’m more persuaded by. FRFL could have considered that the legislation doesn’t explicitly require Mr D to prove matters as soon as the six months elapsed. Here Mr D reported the issue to FRFL just as the six months elapsed, but he’d already reported earlier issues to the selling dealer. FRFL could have provided some independent evidence, or at least some evidence to show what repairs were completed and that those brought the motorbike back to conform to the contract. So, I think it could have done more here to show that it didn’t have any liability for what went wrong. But even if I were to set aside the question about the quality of the motorbike, I have to consider that there is no doubt that it wasn’t as described. Considering all of that, I still think that on balance FRFL does need to do something to put things right. As I don’t consider FRFL’s comments have changed my decision I still consider my findings, as set out in the provisional decision, and above, to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and direct First Response Finance Limited to do the following: • end the finance agreement ensuring Mr D is not liable for monthly rentals after the point of collection (it should refund them any overpayment for these if applicable). • take the motorbike back (if that has not been done already) without charging for collection • Remove any adverse information about the agreement which has been reported to the credit reference agencies. • Refund Mr M his deposit of £2,950 • Refund Mr D payments made since October 2024 for loss of use. • Pay 8% simple annual interest* from the date of each payment above until the date of settlement. • Pay £150 compensation.

-- 6 of 7 --

* If First Response Finance Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell Mr D how much tax it’s taken off. It should also give Mr D a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one, so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 25 November 2025. Caroline Kirby Ombudsman

-- 7 of 7 --