BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited · DRN-6254440

The complaint Mr D complains that the car he acquired through BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited (“BMW”) wasn’t of satisfactory quality. He says he experienced problems with the electrics within a few weeks of acquisition, and despite a number of attempts to remedy things, the problem still persists. He wants to reject the car, have the credit agreement unwound, and be paid some compensation. What happened Mr D entered into a hire purchase agreement in July 2024 to acquire a used car. The cash price of the car was £20,695, and after taking into consideration Mr D’s advance payment; the amount of credit provided was £19,627. The credit agreement was set up over a term of 48 months with Mr D’s monthly payments set at £370.10, meaning the total amount repayable if the agreement ran to term would be £27,278.49. At the time of acquisition, the car was more than four years old and had been driven just over 16,000 miles. Mr D told us: • A few weeks after acquiring the car, alerts and warnings relating to tyre pressure and the sensor began to appear. And these became more frequent over the next two to three months; • he contacted his local BMW dealership [which I’m going to refer to as “W”] in December 2024 and he was referred to BMW Roadside Assistance, which promptly referred him back to W; • he booked the car in with W, and it investigated the matter and he was advised the issue has been resolved; • within days, the same alerts and warnings reappeared, and he contacted W again for the car to be looked at; • he was charged for replacement tyres and brake fluid, and was advised that the electrical issues had now been resolved; • within a few days, the alerts and warnings appeared yet again – the issues with the electrics had not been resolved – and he contacted W and booked the car in again; • W’s mechanic said there was nothing further they could do, other than what they’d already done on several occasions, and he ought to return the car to the original supplying dealership [which I’m going to refer to as “M”]; • he contacted M and it initially told him to bring the car in so it could address the problems with the electrics, but it then changed its position and asked him to pay for diagnostics, before then suggesting he take up the matter with BMW directly as it had provided the finance under the hire purchase agreement; • the fault represents itself every couple of weeks; he’s spent a lot time on wasted appointments with W that did not resolve things, and he wasn’t provided with a courtesy car whilst the fault was being investigated; • he wants to reject the car and have the credit agreement cancelled, and he wants the cost of his warranty and car insurance refunding along with some compensation for the distress and inconvenience he’s been caused;

-- 1 of 5 --

• he also wants an explanation of why BMW things the way it has handled his complaint is in line with the regulatory rules. BMW rejected Mr D’s complaint about the satisfactory quality of the car. It explained its understanding of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”), and said that because Mr D reported the fault with the car to M and to BMW more than six months after it was supplied, he’d need to provide an independent vehicle inspection report that confirmed the fault with the car was present or developing at the point of supply. It did say it would review its position if Mr D provided additional information, and it provided Mr D with contact details for a number of organisations that carry out these types of vehicle inspections. BMW acknowledged “the prolonged period it took for us to provide you with a resolution”, and it apologised and paid Mr D £200 compensation. Our Investigator looked at this complaint and said that she didn’t think it should be upheld. She explained the relevance of the CRA in the circumstances of this complaint and said that although Mr D had taken the car to W on at least three occasions, W wasn’t the supplying dealership or the provider of the finance, so its actions had been unauthorised. Our Investigator said that because Mr D had complained to BMW more than six months after the car was supplied, he’d need to provide evidence of the fault and that it was present or developing at the point of supply. Upon receipt of that evidence, our Investigator explained that BMW and M would need to be afforded an opportunity to undertake appropriate repairs. Finally, our Investigator explained that this Service couldn’t consider a complaint against BMW about the warranty, as the warranty had not been purchased and financed as part of the hire purchase agreement. Our Investigator signposted Mr D to complain directly to the dealership that sold the warranty, or to the warranty provider itself. Mr disagrees, so the complaint comes to me to decide. He says although he understands the differentiation between M, BMW, and W, he doesn’t accept that he had unauthorised repairs attempted on the car. He says not only is W an authorised dealership, but he was signposted to it by M when he acquired the car as it was far closer to his home address. My initial conclusions are set out in my provisional decision which I issued in March 2026. In it, I said I thought that Mr D’s complaint should be upheld, and I set out what I thought BMW need to do to put things right. I explained my reasoning as follows: “When looking at this complaint I need to have regard to the relevant laws and regulations, but I am not bound by them when I consider what is fair and reasonable. The hire purchase agreement entered into by Mr D is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means that this Service is able to consider complaints relating to it. BMW is also the supplier of the goods under this type of agreement, and it is responsible for a complaint about their quality. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) is relevant 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”. To be considered “satisfactory” the goods would 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 factors. Those factors, in the case of a car purchase, will include things like the age and mileage of the car at the time of sale, and the car’s history.

-- 2 of 5 --

The quality of the goods includes their general condition and other things like their fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, safety and durability. I’ve seen evidence in the form of testimony, as well as copies of emails between Mr D and the other parties he complains about. This information was also supplied by BMW in its business file. And, having considered everything most carefully, I’ve reached a number of provisional findings which lead me to conclude that this complaint should be upheld. • I’m satisfied that I can safely conclude there is a fault with the electrics. I’ve noted Mr D’s very detailed testimony including the fact that he returned the car to W on at least three occasions to have the fault with the tyre pressure sensor addressed. • On the basis that Mr D contacted W and BMW Roadside Assistance in December 2024, I’ve concluded that the fault with this aspect of the electrics arose within the first six months after the car was supplied. The car was supplied in July 2024, so the fault arose, at the latest in the fifth month. Although I should highlight to BMW that I’ve seen Mr D’s comments indicating he’d been living with the fault for some time at this point. • I’ve already explained the relevance of the CRA in the circumstances of this complaint, and because the fault with the electrics arose within the first six months of supply, I’m able to conclude, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, that the fault was present or developing when BMW supplied this car to Mr D. • In this particular case, I’m not persuaded that Mr D’s involvement of W was unauthorised or inappropriate. I can understand that the finance company and the supplying dealership, in this case BMW and M, wouldn’t want customers authorising car repairs at backstreet garages, independent workshops, small village repair shops, or with their mates, but this is not the situation here. W and M are both manufacturer-approved dealerships. An examination of their websites shows them both to be Official BMW Dealerships. And, with the exception of address and phone numbers, and the name of the managing director, W’s website and M’s website are identical. They are identical in terms of their layout, their colouring, their branding, their wordings, the services offered, their pricing and deals, their recruitment, their opening hours, and in many other areas too. So for me to not uphold this complaint, I’d need to be persuaded that it was wrong for Mr D to take the car to W, rather than M – he says M told him at the point the car was supplied to use W for future repairs and servicing as it was also an authorised dealership and was far closer to where he lived. I’d also need to be persuaded that W’s diagnosis and attempt at repairs was inferior to what would’ve happened had the car been taken to M. But I understand that as official authorised BMW dealerships, mechanics at both W and M would have had very similar manufacturer-approved training; have had access to very similar, if not identical testing facilities and equipment; and have been trained and coached in a similar fashion to provide BMW’s recognised standard of customer service. So, taking all this into account, although I understand BMW’s position, I’m currently persuaded that the fault was present or developing when the car was supplied, and that there’s been several failed attempts at repair.

-- 3 of 5 --

Because of this, I don’t think the car was of satisfactory quality when supplied, and because of the unsuccessful attempts at repair by an official BMW approved dealership, I think it’s fair that Mr D is now able to reject the car. Mr D has described in some detail the inconvenience he’s been caused because of a fault that highlighted a safety issue, and the loss of enjoyment he’s had driving a car of relatively high prestige. Because of this, I’m going to ask BMW to refund him some monthly rentals, and I’m going to ask it to pay him some compensation in recognition of the anxiety and worry it caused. I need to tell both parties that calculating this is not an exact science. The car was faulty, his usage of it was impaired, and his enjoyment of it was adversely affected, so Mr D should get some money back. I think the fair and reasonable amount is for BMW to refund Mr D 10% of his monthly rentals with statutory interest applied to it. I’m also going to ask BMW to pay Mr D £150 in compensation, in recognition of the frustration and distress I believe he experienced. But I need to tell Mr D that this is not to punish BMW as this is not the role of this Service. This Service doesn’t supervise, regulate or discipline the businesses we cover. And my role isn't to punish or penalise businesses for their performance or behaviour – that’s the role of the Regulator, in this case the Financial Conduct Authority. The role of this Service is to look at problems and concerns experienced by an individual consumer and determine whether, or not, the financial business – in this case BMW – has done anything wrong. And, if it has, I’ll seek to put the consumer back in the position they would've been in if those mistakes hadn't happened. I’m not minded to make an award for the car insurance Mr D paid for. This is because as the driver of a car, irrespective of the mileage driven, he’s responsible for ensuring it’s adequately insured, and this is clearly set out in the credit agreement that he signed”. I asked each party to let me have further information, that I’d not already seen, that they’d like me to consider. And I asked that this be sent to me by 27 March 2026. I’ve received no further submissions from MFL. Mr D provided no further information, but he said he accepted my provisional 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. Having considered all of the evidence again, I have reached the same conclusions as set out in my provisional decision and for the same reasons. I don’t think the car was of satisfactory quality when it was supplied, and I think the fair way to settle this complaint is for BMW to accept Mr D’s rejection of the car.

-- 4 of 5 --

Putting things right I direct BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED to put things right by doing the following: • Ending the credit agreement with nothing further to pay; • Removing any adverse information from Mr D’s credit file in relation to the agreement; • Collecting the car at no further cost or inconvenience to Mr D; • Refunding any deposit paid by Mr D; • Refunding Mr D 10% of his monthly rentals monthly to reflect the fact that he experienced impaired usage of the car, when he drove it, and had no use of the car when it was being repaired; • Paying 8% simple yearly interest on all refunded amounts from the date of payment until the date of settlement*; • Paying an amount of £150 for the distress, worry, anxiety and inconvenience that’s been caused due to the supply of faulty goods. *HM Revenue & Customs requires BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED to take off tax from this interest. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED must give Mr D a certificate showing how much tax has been taken off if he asks for one. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and require BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED to settle this complaint as I’ve directed. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 25 April 2026. Andrew Macnamara Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --