Partially upheld: PCP / HP mis-selling complaint against Volvo Car UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs T complained about end-of-contract charges totalling approximately £385 for damage, two £30 aborted collection fees, and hire charges for a retention period following her termination of a car hire agreement with VCUK. The first collection was aborted at Mrs T's request after she was advised of wheel damage; she subsequently paid £380 for repairs. A second collection appointment was also aborted, allegedly due to disputes over car cleanliness and inspector conduct. The third collection succeeded on 26 February 2025. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, directing removal of only the £65 front bumper charge while upholding all other charges as compliant with BVRLA fair wear and tear standards. The ombudsman found Mrs T had adequate notice of charges and opportunities to inspect and repair the vehicle, and that a second inspection was reasonable given the extended retention period.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied BVRLA industry standards to assess whether damage charges were justified. The trained inspector's in-person assessment and photographic evidence were deemed the most persuasive evidence. Mrs T was fairly warned of damage charges in the contract and had opportunities to inspect and repair the car before collection. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence that M was acting as VCUK's agent to hold VCUK liable for M's conduct or representations. The ombudsman determined that a second inspection was reasonable given the car remained in Mrs T's possession for an extended period, and VCUK needed to verify condition on collection day. The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that the front bumper charge should be removed but found all other charges justified.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website