Not upheld: PCP / HP mis-selling complaint against MARSHALL MOTOR GROUP LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F complained that a car supplied under a hire purchase agreement with Marshall Motor Group Limited was mis-sold, claiming he had paid a higher deposit (£5,000 instead of £4,000), was entitled to a higher part exchange value (£7,000 instead of £6,200), and was not properly informed about insurance products totalling £908. The ombudsman examined the documentary evidence including bank statements, deposit receipts, and various agreements. While Mr F's bank statements confirmed £4,000 in electronic payments matching the executed agreement, they did not evidence the additional £1,000 in cash he claimed to have paid. Although a preliminary agreement showed £7,000 for part exchange, the executed vehicle order form and used vehicle purchase form both clearly stated £6,200. The insurance products were clearly itemised in the signed vehicle order form. The ombudsman did not uphold any element of the complaint, finding the executed agreements clear and that Mr F had not substantiated his claims with sufficient evidence.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the standard of balance of probabilities to assess whether Mr F substantiated his claims. For the deposit claim, while Mr F asserted he paid an additional £1,000 in cash, his bank statements only evidenced £4,000 in electronic payments, which matched the deposit amount in the executed agreement. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence to support the additional cash payments claimed. For the part exchange discrepancy, although a preliminary agreement showed £7,000, the executed vehicle order form and used vehicle purchase form both clearly stated £6,200, which the ombudsman found sufficient to override the earlier expectation. For the insurance products, the vehicle order form clearly itemised these costs and Mr F signed the agreement, demonstrating transparency and his consent to use credit for these products.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website