Zopa Bank Limited · DRN-6250556

The complaint Mr I complains about the quality of a car supplied to him by Zopa Bank Limited (‘Z’). What happened The parties are familiar with the background details of this complaint – so I will briefly summarise them here. It reflects my role resolving disputes with minimum formality. In October 2024 Z supplied Mr I with a second-hand car via a hire purchase agreement. Mr I says he was driving home when the car broke down. He says he found out the timing belt had snapped and he would probably need an engine rebuild. Mr I says there was a partial service history with the car and nothing to say the timing belt was ever replaced. He says that the belt should have been replaced by at least 2022 in accordance with the manufacturer guidance. Mr I complained to Zopa about the quality of the car. He produced an expert report to support his case (‘Report A’) that concluded the car was not in a durable condition in regard to the timing belt system as the timing belt was overdue for replacement and there was no evidence showing it had been replaced. It did not confirm engine damage but said that Zopa would be responsible for all costs associated with investigating and repairing this. Zopa had its own report carried out (‘Report B’) which disagreed with the findings in Report A. On this basis it didn’t uphold his complaint. Report B concluded that the belt had snapped due to reasonably expected wear and tear – and not a durability issue. It concluded that it was Mr I’s role to ensure the car was properly maintained noting the car had no documented service history at the point of supply since 2020. Mr I referred the matter to this service. Our investigator upheld the complaint but Zopa disagreed and asked for an ombudsman to look into things for a final decision. I issued a provisional finding on this case which said: What I’ve provisionally 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. 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. The agreement in this case is a regulated consumer credit agreement. As such, this service is able to consider complaints relating to it. Z 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 is of particular relevance to this complaint. It says that

-- 1 of 4 --

under a contract to supply goods, there is an implied term that “the quality of the goods is satisfactory”. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 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. So it seems likely that in a case involving a car, the other relevant circumstances a court would take into account might include things like the age and mileage at the time of sale and the vehicle’s history. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA from now on’) 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 can be aspects of the quality of goods. Zopa supplied Mr I with a second-hand car that was around eight and a half years old and had done around 85,000 miles at the point of supply. The dealer priced it at £6,499 which is notably less than what a new or newer model with less mileage would cost. It is fair to say that in these circumstances (particularly noting the price, age and mileage) a reasonable person would consider that the car had already suffered significant wear and tear – and was likely to require more maintenance and potentially costly repairs much sooner than you might see on a newer, less road worn model. And I can’t see evidence that the dealer described the car in such a way that would alter those expectations. I note here that Mr I was able to travel around 5,000 miles in the car over about 9 months before the timing belt failed – so it seems unlikely the car was actively faulty at the point of sale. However, I have considered if the car as supplied was reasonably durable overall. Which I note is the issue in contention between Report A and Report B. Both reports appear to be in agreement that in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidance by 2022 the timing belt was recommended to be replaced. I also note that information available online indicates that timing belts generally need to be replaced prior to 7 years and between 60,000 to 100,000 miles. It follows that because the car timing belt failed when it had done almost 90,000 miles and was over 9 years old, a reasonable person would not say that the belt was not reasonably durable overall. And that any failure of the belt at this stage would not be premature but due to reasonably expected wear and tear. So, prima facie, and in line with the findings in Report B I do not agree the car is of unsatisfactory quality on the basis of durability. I note Report A appears to suggest the reason the car is not sufficiently durable is because the timing belt was manufacturer recommended to be changed prior to Mr I’s ownership of the car in line with servicing schedules. And there is no evidence to suggest that it had been. However, I consider this reasoning does not adequately take into account all the factors which go into a finding on satisfactory quality under the CRA (including the age and mileage of the car, price and its description at the time of supply). I find Report B more persuasive in the circumstances. I will explain why. An assessment of satisfactory quality under the CRA (including considerations around durability) will be based on what is reasonable in the particular circumstances including the description of the car. In this case Mr I admits that when he bought the car it was supplied with a partial service history up to 2020, and there was no indication that the timing belt had been renewed previously. I have also seen the advert for the car and don’t see any statement to confirm this either. It therefore follows that the reasonable person buying a car of this age and mileage (without a complete service history confirming certain component renewal) would not assume that those components had been renewed. It is reasonably

-- 2 of 4 --

expected when buying a second-hand car of this age and mileage, with a partial service history that there is an enhanced and accepted risk certain components will need renewal reasonably soon after supply. This is also reflected in the price. It is not uncommon for those buying cars of this nature to have a qualified mechanic check over the vehicle to service and identify key components (like a timing belt) that would be necessary or prudent to renew sooner rather than later. It follows that in the circumstances I find there is not persuasive evidence to show the car Zopa supplied to Mr I was of unsatisfactory quality in all the circumstances here. And Mr I does not have the right to have it repair the car – or accept some other remedy like rejection. I know this will come as a disappointment to Mr I. And I am sorry to hear about the financial strain the matter has put him through. However, my role is informal, and Mr I is free to consider other more formal routes for his dispute (such as court) if he wishes. My provisional decision I do not uphold this complaint. Zopa responded to say it had nothing more to add. Mr I said the timing belt on the car should have been changed in 2022 and there was nothing on the advert to say the service history wasn’t updated. He says the dealer should have informed him in writing that the service history wasn’t updated and the timing belt was due. 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. Neither party has given me reason to change my provisional finding. So my final decision is the same for the reasons I have already explained and noting any comments I have made as follows: I thank Mr I for his further comments. What he says doesn’t add anything to those submissions I have already considered and addressed already. However, it is worth me reinforcing the point that when buying a second-hand car it would not usually be reasonable to assume that it comes with a full-service history – or that certain parts had been replaced, without a specific confirmation of this at the point of sale. Because, Mr I has been clear that the car was not sold as having had the timing belt changed – it follows that it has not been described in a way that would have set that expectation in respect of the quality and durability of the car. Once again, I know this will come as a disappointment to Mr I. And I am sorry to hear about the financial strain the matter has put him through. However, my role is informal, and Mr I is free to consider other more formal routes for his dispute (such as court) if he wishes. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr I to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026.

-- 3 of 4 --

Mark Lancod Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --