Is it just me or is the car buying experience becoming more of a crapshoot?
In February 2026, after more than a year of planning, deciding, checking and rechecking our finances, my partner and I decided to splurge a little on our next vehicle - a Volvo XC90. The process started out well and was straightforward enough. We went through various online auto markets until we found something that fit the bill in terms of finance and specs on car listings from a dealer – E&E Car Sales – from CarFinance247, which describes itself as a car finance and loan company but primarily connects car buyers to actual lenders/financial companies.
The online reports from a car dealer showed that the vehicle was clear, with no outstanding issues on the MOT report, which was completed in December 2025, along with a full service done by the dealer. Of course, at that time, I didn’t know what I do now. I contacted Carfinance247, which assigned me an agent, and got in touch with the dealer to arrange a day and time to view the vehicle before committing to a purchase (as anyone should). We’re based in the East Midlands, and the car dealer is 180 miles away in Canvey Island. We decided to make a trip out of it, go see what Canvey Island was about, and see the vehicle. That was on Monday, 23 February 2026.
The following day, we got a call from the dealer asking if we’d be okay with paying in advance so we could view, inspect and collect the vehicle on the Saturday (28 February 2026). Naturally, we said no; that’d be too risky as we’d have to inspect and test the vehicle first and make sure it was okay. The dealer expressed their obvious displeasure - something about us jerking his chain around - which, in hindsight, was also a red flag.
We confirmed that IF the vehicle was in good condition on the Saturday, we’d give the go-ahead to Carfinance247 to transfer the funds, and we would leave with the vehicle. To that, the dealer - who, according to our assigned agent, had well over 200 transactions with Carfinance247 - responded that the broker doesn't do payment transfers on Saturdays/weekends. I asked the Carfinance247 agent about this, and they confirmed, encouraging us to proceed with the pre-payment. If there was any issue (they emphasised the ANY ISSUE), we could just return the vehicle within the cooling period.
In a right-to-reply response, Carfinance247 notes that "Our call review confirms that the salesperson clearly explained our process and stated multiple times that no funds would be released without your explicit permission. You provided this permission on 26/02/2026, and only then were the funds released." Yes, following the assurance that we'll be covered fully if anything went wrong. The Carfinance247 response continues, "Regarding the suggestion of a 'full refund': The salesperson did not state that the purchase was fully refundable. They correctly outlined the Consumer Rights Act 2015, under which customers have 30 days to report any fault. If a fault is identified, our Customer Care team works with the dealership to ensure they meet their legal obligations. This is the standard and lawful process for all customers."
That I disagree with - I'll be happy to review the call and everything in said call if they are willing to provide it.
Anyways, from the Midlands to the shop in Canvey Island was about 360 miles round trip and considering ‘we could return the vehicle if anything was wrong’, we took the erroneous and easy route and decided that it made more sense to pre-pay and just have a single 180 miles going and 180 miles return and be done with it, rather than having to go back for the vehicle at a later date. That’s where the problems started.
We signed the payment transfer on Thursday, 26 February 2026, encouraged by the Carfinance247 agent that it was all reversible if there was ANY issue with the vehicle and also with our very limited knowledge of the 30-day returns period under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Things seemed to be progressing according to someone’s plan - we just had no idea it wasn’t ours. We made a trip of it - we got to Canvey Island on Friday, 27 February 2026, and did a little tour of the area on the morning of Saturday, 28 February, before going to get the vehicle and head home.
On arrival at the dealer’s, we were given the vehicle keys to ‘take a look around the vehicle’. In the walkaround video that we were sent two days before, the vehicle was in the courtyard, but it wasn't there when we arrived. I understand it’s a car shop, and cars come and go, and have to be rearranged all the time. However, I distinctly recall that there was a van parked (seemingly unnecessarily) directly in front of the vehicle, wedging it in - at that time, I thought that was strange, especially as it was a vehicle that was about to be sold (shouldn't it be out in the open? Why was it hidden away?).
Anyhow, we were true to our word - we needed a vehicle and had no plans to ‘jerk the dealer’s chain around’ - signed the papers, got a drive-away insurance, and hit the road. Maybe this is just me, but there was less than a quarter tank of fuel in the vehicle, which I thought was tasteless and stingy considering the price of the vehicle and how far we’d driven and were going to be driving. If it were me, I’d probably have done a half tank for the customer - just saying.
My partner drove our other vehicle, and I drove the new-to-us XC90. We were to meet at a fuel station around the corner from the dealer in Canvey Island. When the entire thing blew up days later, she still recalls that I called it then. Driving to the station, the vehicle kept leaning to one side and then the other, even at low speeds - and I mentioned that it seemed that there was something wrong with the steering. But again, I thought, maybe I wasn't yet used to driving an SUV of that size.
We hit the highway after that, and, as a precaution, because of the wheels leaning one way or the other, I did around 50-60 mph most of the way back. It wasn’t until I was a few miles from home that I thought, "We won’t be driving the vehicle at 50 mph; I might as well test how it’s going to be driven", and I did. I got to the speed limit and, fortunately, almost immediately after, there was the obligatory M1 weekend traffic, and I had to apply the brakes a bit aggressively, and the shudder that went through the steering wasn’t even mistakeable anymore - there was clearly something wrong.
I immediately considered calling the dealer right then, but I decided that as I had booked a look-over service with Lindsley’s Autocentre, an independent, former Volvo-brand service centre for the next week, Tuesday, 3 March 2026, I'd have to wait for any results from that. Before I dropped the vehicle off, I called Carfinance247 customer service (in hindsight, perhaps I should have called the agent, who had encouraged us to pre-pay for the vehicle in the first place) to report the issue, and they asked for a report from an independent shop. I informed them I was on the way to get one.
According to the independent garage report, the front wheel alignment was off, and the two front tyres were marked as “bent out of shape, requires urgent attention” - which probably explains the shuddering on braking and leaning when driving - as well as brake fluid that was too old and had not been changed according to the vehicle brand requirements. Considering the “service” and MOT done only a month or so before that didn’t find anything, I asked the Lindley techs how that was possible.
The laughter that accompanied the question was probably all the answer I needed. Apparently, if one is so inclined and knows the relevant parties, one can easily ‘sort’ any MOT issues. I didn’t know that back then, but it raised serious questions about our entire experience.
At that point, we decided not to accept the vehicle and to involve the finance company Motonovo, which, in the contract we had signed, offered a no-questions-asked 14-day contract cancellation period. I forwarded the inspection report to Motonovo, Carfinance247 and the dealer. The dealer was adamant and stated that the MOT clearly showed there was nothing wrong with the vehicle, which, in hindsight, would make sense, as MOT tests do not cover some of the issues highlighted by the independent inspection. However, their refusal to accept damage at the point of sale also meant that I somehow misaligned the wheel and bent and severely damaged the tyres in the minutes it took me to notice while driving to the fuel station, or in the 2 hours it took to drive back home.
One of the questions we had that pushed our decision to return the vehicle was that, if the tyres and alignment - things that are obvious and easily noticed - were broken, what about other parts/items in the vehicle that can be hidden and are not easily accessible or tested at a quick inspection? Again, considering what we now understand about MOT tests, was an important question.
Motonovo, on their part, refused our rejection of the vehicle and cancellation of the contract. In the agreement, Motonovo states, “You have the right to withdraw from the agreement for the Vehicle and/or any Settlement Shortfall Loan and/or any VAPs Loan, without giving a reason, within 14 days starting from the day after the date we tell you in writing that the agreement has been made.” I had exercised my legal rights and called and emailed to cancel the contract and withdraw from the agreement within the first week, and Motonovo had rescinded the agreement.
In the first month, when we believed we were dealing with rational people, we tried to highlight the points - the issues with the vehicle, the independent report, and the terms of the contract. They were ignoring everything and adamantly pushing for payments, threatening to wreak havoc on our credit rating if we didn’t make at least one payment. Thankfully, one precaution we had taken was to pursue a zero-deposit option throughout. So, although we had spent time and fuel travelling to get the vehicle, we had no significant financial horse in the race. Every time another Motonovo agent called and made all their threats of wrecking credit rating havoc, I’ve always asked them to kindly send the update via email, so that we have a record. So far, they have refused. I decided I’d start recording the calls in case I needed evidence, and they have stopped calling. They haven’t stopped sending letters about payments, though.
I also sent them a right-to-reply about the content of this article, and they declined to comment, as did the dealer.
Following the requisite eight-week discussion period, after which, if no settlement is reached by any of the parties involved in a dispute, we pursued the next logical step: we got the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) involved. As required, I presented my side of the case to the FOS – emails, the independent inspection report, and all the expenses following their refusal to accept the terms of our contract, which left us without transportation for several weeks. It’s been more than four months, and the case is ongoing. In that time, Motonovo, as the financier, is responsible for providing evidence that any defect found in the vehicle was not present at the point of sale, which they have been unable to do.
They have, however, not failed to send us more non-payment letters (three different letters in just the second week of June 2026) and add their promised adverse information to my credit file. I assume their goal is to bully us into submission. It’s not working yet.
Although the initial FOS investigator sided with us, MotoNovo rejected the judgement (stating that there is no connection between the vehicle leaning and vibrating and the issues spotted by the independent garage), and the case is now awaiting an ombudsman’s decision.
The investigator suggested that I ask Lindley's Automotive to provide an email stating whether they thought that the symptoms I experienced while driving were connected to the degraded tyres and alignment. After saying they'll send the email the next day, they gave me the runaround for a few days, so I stopped chasing them - I completely understand not wanting to be involved.
MotoNovo seems to be trying to distract from the primary issue: the vehicle was not in satisfactory condition at the point of sale. And they have not been able to, or have not bothered to, prove otherwise.
I've looked at several car dealership reviews and noticed some slightly similar cases where the dealer or financial provider is taken to court to get the necessary result. I understand I could have been more careful with the purchase - that is a lesson learned. But as we can't always have savvy consumers buying things, the consumer protection laws are supposed to step in, right? Is this the norm?