Oodle Financial Services Limited · DRN-6160074

The complaint Mr T complains that Oodle Financial Services Limited trading as Oodle Car Finance refused to let him reject a faulty vehicle. What happened In February 2024 Mr T acquired a second-hand car at a cost of £14,293 funded by a loan from Oodle. It was some 3 years old and had a recorded mileage of 78,183. He also purchased a warranty for the vehicle. In October the vehicle broke down and was recovered by the RAC. It had covered 82,354 miles at this point. Mr T says that he had the vehicle inspected by two independent garages and they both declared it unrepairable. Mr T had to acquire another vehicle and in due course he voluntarily terminated his finance agreement with Oodle. He first complained to Oodle in October 2024 and it says it asked him for more information but it got no response. He complained a second time in 2025 and Oodle issued a final response letter rejecting his complaint in June. It said that it had not been given evidence to support Mr T’s claim. Mr T brought a complaint to this service where it was considered by one of our investigators who didn’t recommend it be upheld. He explained that apart from an invoice showing the vehicle required injector and extraction/fitting injector repairs there was no other evidence in support of Mr T’s claim. He noted the mileage and said such repairs were usually due to wear and tear and there was no basis for concluding the fault was present at the point of sale. Mr T didn’t agree and submitted copies of online reviews, most, if not all, concerning the warranty company. 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. When the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory as some of it is here – I’ve reached my outcome on the balance of probabilities – that is, what I consider likely to have happened given the available evidence and the wider circumstances. I want to acknowledge that I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I also want to assure Mr T and Oodle that I’ve reviewed everything on file. If I don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it. It’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this. I would add that this complaint is against Oodle and not the dealer or the warranty company. The invoice for the vehicle does not include any reference to a warranty which I presume

-- 1 of 3 --

was purchased separately since Mr T has referred to making monthly payments for it. That means it was not funded by Oodle and so it is not responsible for any failings by the warranty company. I have every sympathy with Mr T, but I do not consider I can uphold his complaint. I will explain why. Under Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act, finance providers can be held liable for what the credit broker and seller say about the goods (vehicle) before the regulated credit agreement is entered into by the consumer and before the purchase is made. This refers to ‘antecedent negotiations’. This means if Mr T entered a credit agreement for a vehicle and it turns out something he was told about the agreement by the credit broker, which induced him into entering the contract, was false, the broker can be held responsible for the actions of the broker under certain circumstances. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is relevant to this complaint. This says that goods must be of satisfactory quality when supplied. Vehicles are of satisfactory quality if they are of a standard that a reasonable person would regard as acceptable, taking into account things such as the age and mileage of the car and the price paid. The legislation says that the quality of the goods includes their general state and condition, and other things like fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety and durability. The vehicle supplied to Mr T was second-hand, so I’d expect it to have a degree of wear and tear and to require more repairs and maintenance than, say, a brand new vehicle. So, in order to uphold this complaint, I would need to be persuaded that there was an inherent fault with the vehicle at the point of supply, as opposed to a fault which occurred due to general wear and tear. Based on what I’ve seen, I’m satisfied that there was a fault with the car. However, there is little evidence to show exactly what the fault was or whether it was present at the point of sale. Mr T has asked that Oodle let him reject the car and that is a significant request for which he needs to provide clear evidence in support of his claim. This he has not done. I have seen an invoice referring to a diagnostic test, but not the result of that test. I have also seen an extract of the RAC report which lists a number of diagnostic codes but nothing which identifies what if anything might have been present at the point of sale. I appreciate Mr T has tried to ask the two garages which looked at the vehicle for more information, but this has not been forthcoming. Mr T has said that he spoke to one of the independent garages and was told the vehicle was running but the emissions were not repairable, however there is no written evidence concerning this. Nor do I consider the more recent recall by the manufacturer to be evidence in support of Mr T’s claims. Quite simply there is not sufficient evidence to show the vehicle was faulty or had an inherent fault at the point of sale. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Ivor Graham

-- 2 of 3 --

Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --