Itc Compliance Limited · DRN-6227395

The complaint Mr C is unhappy that a car supplied to him under a hire agreement with Itc Compliance Limited (ITC) was of an unsatisfactory quality. When I refer to what Mr C has said and what ITC have said, it should also be taken to include things said on their behalf. What happened In February 2025, Mr C was supplied with a new car through a hire agreement with ITC, arranged through an appointed representative. He paid a deposit of £1,200 and the agreement was for 24 months with monthly payments of £825. Mr C said that the car was delivered to him on 1 May 2025. He complains that after two weeks the multimedia system in the car failed. He said this meant the position lights weren’t working, the speedometer was flashing and switching off during journeys, and the lane assist function wasn’t working. He said the indicator lights were showing to be on, but he said they were not indicating as they should be. He said he was told by the manufacturer that a new part was required and this wouldn’t be available until September 2025. He said he was told he couldn’t have a replacement car. He asked about cancelling the agreement and was told he’d have to pay £8,250 to do so. He said he can’t afford to pay that fee, and couldn’t afford to continue to pay £825 every month for a car that he can’t use. He said that the car was collected on 20 October 2025, and ITC require him to pay £15,000. ITC said that Mr C complained to them in July 2025 about the failure of the infotainment system. They said he described the car as undriveable and unsafe, but they said vehicle tracking data showed consistent high mileage use through May, June, and July 2025. They said Mr C stopped using the car after 1 August 2025. They said a main dealer garage inspected the car on 27 May 2025 and confirmed that there was a fault related to the display screen and communication with the lane assist system. They said a replacement navigation display had been ordered and this was expected to be delivered by mid-September 2025. The said the main dealer advised Mr C that he could continue to use the car while awaiting the replacement part. ITC said there was no reason to waive contractual fees since Mr C continued to use the car and he chose to stop using it without any verified mechanical justification. They said Mr C had repeatedly requested cancellation, but then changed his mind, and continued to use the car. They said the agreement was cancelled on 13 October 2025 and the car collected on 20 October 2025. They said Mr C owed five monthly payments, and a cancellation penalty of £9,900 calculated in line with the terms of the agreement.

-- 1 of 5 --

Mr C was unhappy with this response, so he referred his complaint to our service for investigation. Our investigator said she was satisfied the car was faulty. She said that Mr C had told ITC of a fault with the car within 30 days of receiving it, and on 12 May 2025 told them he wanted to reject it. So she thought he should have been able to exercise his short-term right to reject the car. She said that ITC failed to tell Mr C he could reject the car, informing him he would incur a termination fee if he returned it. She also said that Mr C had the right to reject the car after it was established that the repair wouldn’t be completed until September 2025, due to the repair taking an unreasonable time and causing unreasonable inconvenience. She said that Mr C should pay for the days he had usage of the car, but a partial refund of 20% of the payments should be made to reflect his impaired usage. She said ITC should refund the payments for days the car wasn’t used. ITC didn’t agree with the investigator. They accepted that Mr C first attempted to reject the car within 30 days, but said there was insufficient evidence that the faults met the statutory threshold for unsatisfactory quality. ITC said Mr C initially asked for repair not rejection, and no technical evidence had been obtained to verify the severity of the alleged faults, or to establish if they were present at the time of delivery. Our investigator responded explaining that the car needed a replacement part to fix a fault, indicating it was not free from minor defects. She also said that in addition, the repair was not done within a reasonable time. Because ITC didn’t agree, this matter has been passed to me to make a 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. Having done so, I’ve reached the same overall conclusions as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. If I haven’t commented on any specific point, it’s because I don’t believe it’s affected what I think is the right outcome. Where evidence has been incomplete or contradictory, I’ve reached my view on the balance of probabilities – what I think is most likely to have happened given the available evidence and wider circumstances. In considering this complaint I’ve had regard to the relevant law and regulations; any regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice, and (if appropriate) what I consider was good industry practice at the time. Mr C was supplied with a car under a hire agreement. This is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means we are able to investigate complaints about it. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) covers agreements such as the one Mr C entered into. Under this agreement, there is an implied term that the goods supplied will be of satisfactory quality. The CRA says that goods will be considered of satisfactory quality where

-- 2 of 5 --

they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory – taking into account the description of the goods, the price paid, and other relevant circumstances. The CRA says the quality of the goods includes their general state and condition, as well as other things like their fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety, and durability. Here, I’ll consider that the car was new. So, I think a reasonable person would expect trouble free motoring for some time. Undisputed Fault In this case, it’s not disputed there was a problem with the infotainment system. I say that because ITC acknowledged this in their response to Mr C, and in their submissions to this service. And the main dealer said a new part was required to fix the fault. However, ITC dispute that the fault made the car not of a satisfactory quality. And they say there’s no evidence that this fault was present when the car was supplied to Mr C. The CRA says that there a number of factors that make a car of a satisfactory quality. In this case I think that would include that it would be free from minor defects. If you’re supplied with a new car you should expect it to function as expected. Just because a car is still driveable doesn’t mean it is of a satisfactory quality. I’ve already said that you would expect a new car to give you trouble free motoring for some time. That’s not what Mr C experienced. He reported the faults shortly after the car was delivered to him – five days after delivery according to ITC. He explained the fault with the infotainment system, and the wider impact – no sensors, lane assist system functioning wrongly, and the speedo working intermittently. And understandably, he was worried about the wider impact on the modern safety equipment that operated through the infotainment system. So I’m satisfied the fault was significant, and made the car not of a satisfactory quality. ITC say that there was no technical evidence that supports this. They had ample opportunity to arrange for an independent engineer or submit evidence from the dealer. In the absence of any such evidence I’ll rely on the evidence available. I’ve explained above why I’m persuaded that, based on the evidence and testimony submitted by ITC, and by Mr C, that the car was not of a satisfactory quality. I’m also satisfied that the fault was present when the car was supplied to Mr C. ITC agree that under section 19(14) CRA 2015, goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within six months after delivery are presumed not to have conformed on the date of delivery. But they argue that “this presumption is rebuttable”. They say that we need to see technical evidence to determine the cause and timing of the reported issues. I’m satisfied that I can rely on the evidence when finding that the fault was present when the car was supplied to Mr C. In their own submissions ITC accept that the fault appeared within the first five days. On a fair and reasonable basis, I think it more likely than not that a fault that arose in this time would likely have been present or developing at the point of supply. So I think it’s safe, as the CRA says, to presume the car did not conform on the date of delivery. ITC also argue that Mr C did not ask to reject the car. I disagree – again, in their own submission they accept that Mr C asked to reject the car on 12 May 2025. This was after he’d asked about repair. But ITC failed to provide him with any information about his rights. He was clearly upset about being provided with a faulty car, one that he was paying a

-- 3 of 5 --

significant monthly amount for. He made it clear he wanted to return the car, or for ITC to collect it. But the response he got was to be told about the termination fee he would have to pay. I can understand why this made him think twice, as he was worried about the financial cost to him. But I’m satisfied his intention was always to reject the faulty car. And I’m satisfied in the circumstances that he should have been allowed to do so. Mr C was then told that the repair wouldn’t be completed until the new part arrived – in mid- September 2025, some four months after he acquired the car. The CRA says that if a consumer, like Mr C, requires the car to be repaired, it must be done within a reasonable time. And if not, the consumer can reject the car. So even if Mr C had agreed to have the car repaired, and I don’t think he did, given that it was going to take four months to repair the car, I’d say that ITC failed to comply with the CRA, and in the circumstances, Mr C should be able to reject the car. Putting things right No Payment Refund ITC has provided data that shows that Mr C was able to use the car while it was in his possession. Because of this, I think it’s only fair that he pays for this usage. However, given the issues with the infotainment system and the wider impact on other functionality such as the speedometer and lane assist, I’m also satisfied that Mr C’s use and enjoyment of the car has been impaired. Because of this, I also think it’s fair that ITC refund some of the payments Mr C made. And I think 20% of the payments made or due fairly reflects the impaired use caused by the car not being of a satisfactory quality. Payment Refund The tracker data shows the days that Mr C did not use the car. I’m persuaded that the reason he didn’t use the car was due to the faults, and because of his worry about what ITC would charge him, especially as that wasn’t made clear to him. The tracked data shows the dates the car wasn’t used up to 18 September 2025. I think it’s reasonable that ITC refund Mr C for all the days that the car wasn’t used. They will need to do the same for the period after 18 September 2025, up to 20 October 2025 when the car was collected. Distress & Inconvenience It’s clear that Mr C was inconvenienced by being provided with a faulty car. He entered into an agreement with ITC for the supply of a new car. He had issues with it from the first few days, and he had to make numerous calls to ITC. From the information I have been provided, and the calls I have listened to, I can see and hear the frustration and distress felt by Mr C. He had to make all the arrangements around the repair, and the calls with ITC were unhelpful – I don’t think he was given clear explanation of his rights, with the emphasis being on the termination fee that would be payable. This all relates back to ITC providing Mr C with a car that was not of a satisfactory quality. Given this went on for the full six months he had the car, and the impact it had on him, I think ITC should pay him £500 in compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. Therefore, ITC should:

-- 4 of 5 --

• end the agreement on 20 October 2025 with nothing more to pay (other than any reasonable charge for damages – that issue has not been considered in this complaint); • collect the car at no cost to Mr C (if not already done); • remove any adverse entries relating to this agreement from Mr C’s credit file; • refund the £1,200 deposit Mr C paid; • refund the payments for all days the car was not used as explained above; • pay Mr C a refund equal to 20% of the payments due for the period the car was used as explained above; • apply 8% simple yearly interest on the refunds, calculated from the date Mr C made the payment to the date of the refund†; and • pay Mr C an additional £500 to compensate him for the distress and inconvenience caused by being supplied with a car that wasn’t of a satisfactory quality. †If ITC considers that tax should be deducted from the interest element of my award, they should provide Mr C with a certificate showing how much they have taken off so he can reclaim that amount, if he is eligible to do so. My final decision For the reasons explained, I uphold Mr C’s complaint about Itc Compliance Limited and they are to follow my directions above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Gordon Ramsay Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --