Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against LEASYS UK LTD

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C entered into a vehicle hire agreement with Leasys in February 2025 for a specific model. Before delivery, the manufacturer withdrew the model and replaced it with a new version at a higher price. Leasys offered Mr C the option to cancel without penalty or proceed with a re-quote. Mr C complained that Leasys should honour the original agreement and that the business had misrepresented the agreement as confirmed and secure. The ombudsman found that Leasys acted reasonably in the circumstances, as the original contract could not be performed when the vehicle became unavailable, and that the statements made did not constitute misrepresentation. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that where a specific vehicle becomes unavailable due to manufacturer action, the original contract cannot be performed as intended. Requiring Leasys to honour the original agreement at the original price would compel the business to absorb a manufacturer-driven price increase or supply a materially different vehicle, which would be unreasonable. The statements describing the order as confirmed and the agreement as complete accurately reflected the position at the time and did not constitute misrepresentation, as hire agreements are commonly subject to availability and there was no guarantee the manufacturer would continue supplying the model.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website