LEASYS UK LTD · DRN-6165069

The complaint Mr C complains about a car supplied under a hire agreement, provided by LEASYS UK LTD (‘Leasys’). What happened Around February 2022, Mr C entered into a hire agreement with Leasys to acquire a brand- new car that had a cash price of £23,765. On 10 March 2025, the car experienced a failure of the suspension strut which rendered it undriveable. The car was recovered to an authorised dealership for inspection. The dealership identified that the suspension strut required replacement and ordered the relevant part. However, there were delays in sourcing the part. The expected delivery day was pushed back on more than one occasion and Mr C says the position became uncertain. Mr C says the dealership later cancelled the order and declined to proceed with the repair. On 4 April 2025, Mr C raised a complaint with Leasys, as the car remained unusable and there was no confirmed timescale for repair. He requested that the agreement be brought to an end or that an alternative solution be provided. Leasys issued a final response in June 2025 and didn't uphold the complaint. It said the car would need to be repaired and that, under the terms of the agreement, Mr C was responsible for maintaining the car. It also said the issue was consistent with wear and tear but said it would review a diagnosis or further evidence. To acknowledge the time Mr C waiting for the car to be repaired, they offered the equivalent of a monthly rental, equalling £258.49. Mr C remained unhappy and continued to raise concerns about the availability of the required part and the lack of clear repair solution. He has said the car remained unusable for a significant period and that no courtesy car or alternative transport was provided. Mr C also raised concerns about how the dealership handled the car, including that is had been left on a public road. While this forms part of the background, the complaint being considered relates to the actions of Leasys as the finance provider. In August 2025, Leasys issued a further final response and maintained its position that the agreement couldn't be ended at that time. Leasys explained the dealer was no longer willing to carry out a repair because it considered the relationship with Mr C to have broken down. Leasys said it had contacted the manufacturer's customer service team, who advised that the part could be ordered through an authorised dealership so that it could be tracked. Unhappy with Leasys' responses, Mr C referred the complaint to our service. He said the car became effectively unrepairable due to the part’s availability and that it was unfair for him to continue making payments while he was unable to use it. He said he’d been without the car for around six months. To resolve the complaint, he is seeking termination of the agreement without penalty, a refund of payments made while the car was unusable, and compensation

-- 1 of 4 --

for the impact of the situation. Our investigator considered the complaint and didn't think it should be upheld. She was satisfied there was a fault with the car but didn't think there was enough evidence to show it was present or developing at the point of supply, particularly given the time and mileage at the point of failure. They also didn't think Leasys had acted unfairly in how it responded to the situation overall. Mr C didn't agree and asked for an Ombudsman to review the complaint, so it's been passed to me to decide. 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 do not think this complaint should be upheld. I’ll explain why. Firstly, I’d like to explain to both parties that I might not comment on every individual point raised or every piece of evidence. Mr C and Leasys can be reassured that I’ve carefully thought about all of the information available. But I’m going to focus on the crux of the complaint and what I consider to be the key facts in this decision. This reflects the informal nature of our service. When considering what’s fair and reasonable, I take into account relevant law, guidance and regulations. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA’) is relevant to this complaint. This says in summary, that under a contract to supply goods, the supplier – which is Leasys here – needed to make sure the goods were of satisfactory quality. This includes consideration of factors such as durability, taking into account the age, price and mileage of the car. The car in this case was brand-new when supplied in March 2022. At the point the fault occurred in March 2025, the car was around three years old and had covered around 38,000 miles. There is no dispute that there was a fault with the car. The suspension strut failed, which rendered the car undriveable and required replacement. Mr C has said “My complaint is not that the vehicle was fault at the point of supply” then went on to say: “My complaint is that during the agreement the vehicle became unrepairable in practice, due to the unavailability of a critical safety component from the sole manufacturer, and that Leasys continued to enforce payment obligations while providing: • No usable vehicle, • No alternative mobility, • No mitigation of loss, and • No coherent or reasonable route to resolution” However, I would find Leasys is responsible for the car being repaired and the impact of not being able to source the repair part, if I thought that the car was of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply. So, I’ll still consider whether I think the car was of satisfactory quality at the point of supply, or not.

-- 2 of 4 --

I've considered that the failure occurred around three years after the car was supplied and after around 38,000 miles of use. Suspension components are subject to wear and can be affected by a range of factors, including road conditions and driving style. Mr C has told us that this component came with a one-year warranty and believes this is unacceptable. Mr C also said: “- The car was fully serviced at a [manufacturer’s dealership] on 1st February 2025, one month before failure, with no advisories or signs of wear. - I was willing to pay for the repair if the part could be sourced.” Leasys said in their final response from 2 June 2025: “the supplier emphasised that neglecting a vehicles suspension system can lead to serious faults, often resulting from driver error or lack of maintenance. A driver who frequently disregards rough terrain, speeds over potholes, or fails to slow down for speed bumps places excessive strain on the suspension components. Over time, this can wear out shock absorbers, damage springs, and misalign crucial parts, ultimately leading to complete system failure. As a result, it must be demonstrated that the vehicles suspension was defective at the time of lease rather than being compromised due to the manner in which it was driven. Had the suspension been faulty within the first six months, the vehicle would not have been able to be driven for the duration it was used.” However, I haven't seen any evidence which confirms the cause of the failure, so I haven't relied on that explanation. Equally, I haven't seen any evidence which shows that the failure was due to an inherent defect or that the component wasn't reasonably durable at the point the car was supplied. I’ve also considered that just before the fault, it was serviced and damage to that component wasn’t raised at that time. And I think it’s quite possible an external event such as an impact possibly could’ve caused the issue. Taking everything into account, including the age and mileage of the car at the point of the failure and the absence of evidence about the cause, I'm not persuaded that the car was of unsatisfactory quality when it was supplied. As I haven't found the car to be of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply, I don't think Leasys is responsible for putting things right under the CRA. Instead, responsibility of repairs falls to being in line with the terms of the agreement. I've seen that the agreement sets out that Mr C is responsible for maintaining the car where a maintenance package isn't in place. I've gone on to consider whether Leasys acted fairly in how it responded to the situation overall. I've seen that there were delays and uncertainty in obtaining the required suspension part from the dealer, and that Mr C says this meant the car was off the road for a significant period. I appreciate that this would have been frustrating. However, I haven't seen sufficient evidence to show that the car was beyond repair altogether or that the required part was permanently unavailable. In an email to us on 12 November 2025, Mr C said:

-- 3 of 4 --

“When I followed this advice and contacted [manufacturer dealership], they told me there was a minimum five-week waiting list, that the car could not be booked in until the part physically arrived, and that no courtesy car could be offered.” While I can see from an email from the garage there was a few months wait time for the part, the information available suggests the part would need made to order and there was uncertainty on the arrival date rather than a confirmed inability to repair the car. I’ve also considered whether Mr C has mitigated his losses here. There are conflicted versions of events about what exactly happened with the order. Thinking about all of this, I’m not entirely sure Mr C couldn’t have got the car repaired, even if it wasn’t at that location. I've also considered what Mr C has said about not being provided with a courtesy car. While I understand this would have been helpful, I haven't seen evidence that Leasys was required under the agreement to provide one in these circumstances. I've taken into account Mr C's concerns about the actions of the repairing garage. While I understand why these issues were concerning, the garage isn't the business complained about here. So I've focused on whether Leasys responded reasonably in light of the situation. I appreciate how upsetting and stressful this situation has been for Mr C, particularly given the time involved. However, based on everything I’ve seen, I don’t think Leasys acted unfairly or unreasonably in declining to reject the car. It follows that I don’t think Leasys is responsible for any of the other resolutions Mr C has asked for. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Shannon O'Brien Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --