Not upheld: contract termination, vehicle return conditions, and allocation of repair costs complaint against Ald Automotive Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained about how Ald Automotive Ltd handled his request to terminate a regulated hire agreement for a van in September 2025. The van had suffered a timing belt failure requiring engine replacement, and Ald required it to be in working order for collection or offered a low loader at Mr H's cost, subsequently charging late-hire fees. Mr H argued the contract should have ended in August 2024 and that Ald should have notified him, and that the timing belt failure should be classified as general wear and tear. The ombudsman found that Mr H's continued monthly payments and van use demonstrated awareness the agreement remained in force on a rolling basis, that the timing belt failure was normal wear after five years and 96,000 miles, and that Ald's collection requirements were reasonable under the agreement terms. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr H agreed to the 12-month extension and accepted the terms that the agreement would continue on a rolling monthly basis until written notice of termination was given. Mr H's continued payment of monthly rentals and use of the van until September 2025 demonstrated his awareness that the agreement remained in force. The timing belt failure occurred while the agreement was still active, and as Mr H had possessed the van for five years and covered 96,000 miles, the fault manifested long after supply and was not an inherent defect. Therefore, Mr H bore responsibility for repairs and returning the van in good condition, and Ald's offer of a low loader collection at Mr H's cost was reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website