Recalls typically arise when safety or performance related defects are identified. Manufacturers must assess the risk with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (GPSR) form the regulatory backdrop, requiring producers and distributors to ensure unsafe products are not placed or kept on the market and that consumers are informed of relevant safety issues. Recalls are usually a proactive, precautionary measure and do not, on their own, establish that a vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality. That assessment remains fact sensitive.

Section 9 of the CRA implies a term into consumer contracts that goods must be of satisfactory quality at delivery, judged objectively by the ‘reasonable person’ with regard to description, price and all other relevant circumstances which include safety, durability and freedom from minor defects. For used cars, age and mileage can be taken into consideration and, importantly, the CRA does not demand perfection.

Section 19 of the CRA sets out a consumer’s remedies where a vehicle is of unsatisfactory quality: (a) the short term right to reject (usually lasting 30 days) or (b) a right to repair or replacement, and, if that fails, a price reduction or final right to reject.

For any fault that appears within the first six months from delivery, the law presumes (unless the consumer is trying to use their 30 day right to reject) that the goods were unsatisfactory quality at the time of delivery, unless the lender can prove otherwise. After six months, that burden shifts to the consumer.

The following decisions show contrasting outcomes:

• In one, a consumer argued a vehicle was unsatisfactory because it was supplied with an outstanding safety recall relating to the exhaust gas recirculation (or ERG) cooler. The lender acknowledged the recall and offered £150 for supplying the vehicle before the recall work was completed. The Ombudsman accepted the GPSR was relevant but stressed that an outstanding recall did not prove the component was faulty at supply, or the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality when supplied. The Ombudsman considered the vehicle’s age, high mileage and the chronology of later faults and found the vehicle was of satisfactory quality when supplied. It therefore upheld the lender’s offer as fair recognition of the recall handling.
• In another, an electric vehicle was subject to a recall because of a potential fire risk from thermal overload. A software update imposed a charging cap until a long-term fix was found. Despite battery module replacement, the restriction continued and materially impaired the consumer’s use. The Ombudsman treated the recall as evidence of a manufacturing defect present or developing from manufacture, and therefore present at supply. Given the safety nature of the risk, the duration of impairment, and the absence of a timely remedy, the Ombudsman decided the vehicle not of satisfactory quality and proposed ending the agreement (with nothing more to pay), refunding the deposit and one month’s instalment (plus interest) plus £150 for distress and inconvenience.

These examples show different outcomes turn on seriousness (for example, safety risk compared to a routine fix), persistence, impact on use, timeliness and effectiveness of remedy, set against vehicle age, mileage and the reasonable person benchmark.

• Consider the evidence and not the label: treat the recall notice as a starting point. Obtain recall bulletins, job sheets, timelines and any interim restrictions and consider how these relate to the factors set out in Section 9 of the CRA of safety, durability, functionality, and real world inconvenience.
• Timing matters: consider the time limits in Section 19 and who the burden of proof sits with.

A recall can be important, but not conclusive, evidence that a vehicle was unsatisfactory quality at the time of delivery. There is no automatic right simply because a vehicle is subject to a recall. The vehicle must still be of unsatisfactory quality when supplied.

The Ombudsman’s contrasting decisions underscore the point: a precautionary, swiftly resolved recall on an older, high mileage vehicle may not be unsatisfactory but a safety critical defect that materially restricts use and continues despite attempts to fix could do so. Each case turns on the facts and the reasonable person assessment, and not the fact that a vehicle is subject to a recall.