Black Horse Limited · DRN-6250104

The complaint Mr R is complaining about the quality of a vehicle supplied to him by Black Horse Limited (Black Horse). What happened In January 2024, Mr R acquired a used car through a hire purchase agreement financed by Black Horse. The car was just over two years old, and it had travelled about 28,000 miles at the time. Mr R complained to Black Horse about the quality of the vehicle in August 2025. He said he’d experienced problems with the vehicle from the start. In particular, he said there had been problems with the Electronic Parking Brake (EPB), auto hold, front wipers, and scratches on the bodywork. He said some repairs had been carried out but faults returned and further faults had developed which he’d had to pay for. Black Horse considered Mr R’s complaint and upheld part of it. They acknowledged that the car wasn’t of satisfactory quality when it was supplied to him and the repairs carried out in early 2024 shouldn’t have been necessary. They noted that the repairs had been carried out at no cost to Mr R and offered to pay him £300 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. But Black Horse didn’t think they were responsible for other issues Mr R complained about. They said he’d seen the car prior to purchase and so would have been aware of any scratches on the vehicle. They said the problems he’d described with the front washer jets, blower motor, windscreen, headlamp, and tyres were likely not present or developing at the point of sale given the mileage and time elapsed before each problem had developed. And they said they had no evidence the car had been advertised as having a full service history so they couldn’t say it had been misrepresented in this way. Mr R wasn’t happy with Black Horse’s response, so he brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. One of our investigators looked into it and said his view was that Black Horse’s offer was fair and reasonable. Black Horse accepted our investigator’s view, but Mr R didn’t. In summary, he said the issues he continues to experience in relation to warning lights appearing while he’s driving are not a minor inconvenience but evidence of failure of safety and control functions. He said these are creating ongoing uncertainty regarding vehicle control and a loss of confidence in the vehicle’s reliability. Mr R said he’d first reported problems with the EPB and related warning systems very early on so it’s clear this is a pre-existing issue. And the fact that they’ve kept appearing after repair shows that the repairs failed – not that later faults are attributable to wear and tear. He said a consumer is entitled to expect braking and collision-avoidance systems to remain reliable regardless of mileage as they’re not consumable components. Finally, Mr R said he became aware that the manufacturer warranty was invalid because of prior servicing issues when this was confirmed by the manufacturer after faults had arisen. He said the lack of evidence of how the car was advertised shouldn’t mean his claim of

-- 1 of 4 --

misrepresentation fails – he said the test should be whether a reasonable consumer would have acted differently had they known at the point of sale. Mr R asked for an ombudsman to decide the complaint – and the matter’s come to me. 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. Having done so, I’m partially upholding Mr R’s complaint for broadly the same reasons as our investigator. While I appreciate this will be disappointing for Mr R, I’ll explain further below. The agreement in this case is a regulated consumer credit agreement. As such, this service is able to consider complaints relating to it. Black Horse were the supplier of the goods under this agreement and are therefore responsible for a complaint about their quality. Black Horse have said they think Mr R acquired the car primarily for business use. They said Mr R told them he was losing work because of issues with the car and the level of mileage driven in a short space of time is extremely high for someone not using the car for business. Mr R has told us he’s never used the car for business and has provided insurance documents showing it wasn’t insured for business use. Whilst Mr R’s mileage was unusually high, I don’t consider it implausible that his use of the car was primarily personal. As such, I think the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) is of particular relevance to this complaint. The CRA says that under a contract to supply goods, there is an implied term that “the quality of the goods is satisfactory”. To be considered satisfactory, the CRA says the goods need to meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking into account any description of the goods, the price and other relevant circumstances. Was the car in satisfactory condition at the point of supply? Mr R bought a car that was just over two years old and had travelled over 28,000 miles. So, whilst it’s fair to say a reasonable person would expect that the car had suffered some wear and tear, they wouldn’t expect to experience significant issues within the first few months. It’s not disputed here that the car wasn’t in satisfactory condition at the point of supply. I can see that the dealership identified problems with the brake pads and discs, aircon, front wipers, EPB and radar within a month of Mr R acquiring the car. What is disputed is whether the repairs carried out resolved all the problems that were present or developing at the point of supply. What are the unresolved problems? Mr R has had a number of problems with the car that weren’t resolved by the repairs. But I’d consider many of these to be “wear and tear” items that degrade over time. These include worn tyres reported in September 2024, problems with the front washer jets identified in September 2024 and March 2025, and the need for a new blower motor in April 2025. In addition, the August 2025 MOT reported problems with the windscreen condition and with the headlamp – which needed realignment. By September 2024, the car had travelled around 17,000 miles in less than eight months since Mr R had acquired it. This is more than double the average annual mileage of a car in the UK. Given this high usage, the timing of these issues coming to light, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, I’m satisfied none of these problems would have been present or developing at the point of supply.

-- 2 of 4 --

In relation to the EPB, auto hold and collision avoidance systems, I can understand Mr R’s point of view that a consumer is entitled to expect these systems to continue working regardless of mileage. It’s clear from various photos he’s submitted that he has been experiencing warning lights in relation to those systems. And I appreciate how frustrating this must have been. However, I’ve seen evidence the manufacturer carried out repairs in July 2024. And the car passed an MOT test in September 2024, suggesting the warning lights weren’t present at that time. Whilst I appreciate the warning lights have been intermittent, I can’t see that Mr R reported the issues again until March 2025. By this time, the car had travelled around 24,000 miles since it was supplied to Mr R, and around 12,000 miles since the manufacturer had carried out repairs. If the repairs had failed, I’d expect Mr R to have reported this much sooner. There could be several different causes of the warning lights coming on – including short- term problems such as dirty sensors, and mechanical issues such as seized-up brakes. Whilst Mr R has provided a diagnostic report carried out in October 2025, this only reports the fault codes found. I’ve seen no independent inspection or other evidence identifying the underlying cause of the problems reported from March 2025 onwards and linking this to the previous problems identified and fixed by the manufacturer. So, taking into consideration the time elapsed and mileage covered between the manufacturer’s repairs and Mr R next reporting any problems, I can’t fairly say that the problems he’s experiencing with the EPB, auto hold and collision avoidance systems are a result of failed repairs. I do appreciate how upsetting and stressful Mr R has been finding this. And he’s provided evidence showing the stress has meant he’s had to take time off work. But, on balance, I can’t hold Black Horse responsible for this. Although they provided Mr R with a car that wasn’t initially of satisfactory quality, repairs were carried out and they evidence I’ve seen suggests they were successful. Misrepresentation Mr R says the fact that the manufacturer’s warranty was no longer valid should have been disclosed to him prior to sale. But to say that the car had been misrepresented to him, I’d need to find that there was a false statement of fact which induced him to buy the car. Mr R says he bought the car in store and has implied that he didn’t look at any adverts for it. There’s no documentary evidence of how the car was advertised or of what Mr R was told about it at the time. And Mr R hasn’t said that he was told that the car had a full service history or that it came with a manufacturer’s warranty. From his testimony, it appears he simply assumed that this would be the case. If the manufacturer’s warranty was important enough to him that he wouldn’t have bought the car without it, it’s reasonable to assume that he’d have asked about it. And it doesn’t seem to be the case that he did ask. In addition, Mr R paid extra for a two-year warranty from the dealer, which I wouldn’t necessarily expect from someone who’d been told the car was covered by a manufacturer’s warranty. So, on balance, I’m not satisfied that Mr R was told that the car came with a full service history or manufacturer’s warranty. And, even if he was, I’m not persuaded he wouldn’t have bought the car if he’d known it came without the manufacturer’s warranty. So I can’t say the car was misrepresented to him. Putting things right As I’ve explained above, Black Horse supplied to Mr R a car that wasn’t of satisfactory quality. They’ve already accepted this and offered to pay Mr R £300 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. I understand Mr R didn’t accept this. But I’m satisfied it’s a fair

-- 3 of 4 --

amount. I say that because the repairs carried out to the car were completed within six months, with most carried out earlier. The car travelled 12,000 miles during those six months. And although I appreciate it would have been frustrating and inconvenient for Mr R to take the car to a garage several times, I can’t say that the impact on him was substantial given the mileage he covered during that time. Because I haven’t found that the repairs failed, I can’t hold Black Horse responsible for any distress and inconvenience Mr R experienced after the repairs were carried out. My final decision As I’ve explained, I’m upholding Mr R’s complaint. Black Horse Limited need to pay Mr R £300 to settle the matter. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Clare King Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --