Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against V12 Retail Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs C complained that V12 sent her finance agreement documentation to an old work email address rather than the one she believed she provided during her January 2024 application. Mrs C claimed the old address was auto-populated from a previous application, while V12 maintained it would not allow such auto-population and that Mrs C must have provided it. The retail branch provided conflicting information suggesting auto-population was possible. The ombudsman found an error occurred but could not fairly determine responsibility based on available evidence and therefore did not uphold the complaint or award compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged an error occurred but found insufficient evidence to determine with certainty whether Mrs C or V12 was responsible. Mrs C was adamant she did not provide the old email address, while V12 claimed auto-population was impossible. The retail branch provided conflicting information suggesting auto-population was possible. Without clear evidence of causation, the ombudsman could not fairly attribute fault. Additionally, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence of distress and inconvenience, noting Mrs C acted quickly to resolve the issue, minimizing impact.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website