u/Frequent_Evening1958

I'm looking for views on my legal position regarding rejection of a financed used car.

I purchased a 2024 Nissan X-Trail e-POWER from a Nissan main dealer for £22,973 on 31 January 2026 using finance through Nissan Financial Services.

Timeline:

• 17 February (17 days after purchase): First fault occurred and was reported to the dealer (loud squeaking noises during turning)
• Due to availability, the dealer booked the vehicle in for inspection on 11 March.
• 9 March: Before that inspection could take place, the vehicle suffered a major fault. It entered "Turtle Mode", displayed multiple warning lights (including HEV/hybrid warnings), lost power and became undriveable.
• The RAC recovered the vehicle to the Nissan dealership.
• The RAC carried out a diagnostic scan and recorded multiple fault codes affecting various systems including the hybrid system, power supply, braking systems and communication networks.
• The RAC cleared the codes to allow recovery of the vehicle and provided me with a written diagnostic report.

The dealer kept the vehicle for approximately a week but later stated they could not replicate the fault and found no issues. The vehicle was returned to me.

I subsequently experienced intermittent issues with the ventilation/air-conditioning system and gave the dealer a further opportunity to inspect the vehicle. Again, they reported "no fault found".

I attempted to reject the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as the initial fault was reported within the first 30 days of ownership and the vehicle later suffered a complete breakdown. I have concerns that this is likely to occur again – therefore have little faith in the vehicle reliability long term.

I then complained to Nissan Financial Services (who funded the purchase and are jointly liable). They initially appeared to rely on the dealer's position. I provided them with the RAC diagnostic report showing the fault codes recorded at the time of the breakdown.

Their final response rejects my complaint. Their position is essentially that:

• the dealer could not reproduce the faults;
• no faults were present when inspected;
• therefore the vehicle is not proven to be faulty.

My position is that:

• the faults arose and were reported within the first 30 days;
• the vehicle suffered a complete loss-of-power breakdown requiring recovery;
• there is independent contemporaneous evidence from the RAC showing multiple fault codes;
• a later inability to reproduce intermittent electrical/hybrid faults does not mean the faults never existed;
• Nissan Finance has effectively preferred the dealer's opinion over independent evidence.

I have now escalated the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

My questions are:

1. Does reporting the first fault within the first 30 days strengthen my right to reject even though the breakdown itself occurred later while waiting for the dealer inspection?
2. How much weight would a court or Ombudsman typically give to an independent RAC diagnostic report compared with a dealer's later "no fault found" assessment?
3. Does Nissan Finance's reliance on the dealer's conclusions, despite being provided with the RAC report, appear reasonable?

Any views would be appreciated.