The bank sued the defendant for cancellation of a credit agreement and return of the motor vehicle sold under that agreement. In October 2025 the High Court dismissed a defence raised by the consumer that the vehicle was defective for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act. The court held that the bank did not market the vehicle to the defendant; it merely financed it. The defence raised of non-disclosure of defects in the vehicle is not a defence to the bank’s claim.
There is clear authority that the bank’s role in the sale of a vehicle is one of credit provider and not one of supplier of the goods in question. The dealer is the ‘supplier’ or ‘dealer’ for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act.
The object of section 5(2)(d) of the CPA, which provides that the goods or services subject to the credit agreement are not excluded from the ambit of the CPA, is to preserve the consumer’s statutory protection against the dealer.
The defence against the bank therefore failed and cancellation and return of the vehicle was ordered.