Not upheld: product quality, fairness of terms, and eligibility for promotional schemes complaint against FCE Bank Plc trading as Ford Credit

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that FCE treated him unfairly regarding a hire purchase agreement for a car entered into in July 2023. His complaints included: not being informed of a loyalty bonus he later discovered he was ineligible for, significant car depreciation over two years, and a precautionary recall notice received in May 2025. The ombudsman found that the loyalty bonus scheme is outside FOS jurisdiction, that depreciation cannot be anticipated at the point of sale and the valuation offered was reasonable, and that a precautionary recall notice does not indicate unsatisfactory quality when a free repair is offered. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the loyalty bonus scheme is a retailer-related scheme outside FOS jurisdiction, and Mr B agreed to the car price without evidence of undue pressure. Regarding depreciation, it is not reasonable to expect the dealership to predict how external factors would impact the car's value two years later, and the part-exchange valuation offered was reasonable and in line with market rates. Concerning the recall notice, while the CRA implies a term of satisfactory quality, a precautionary recall notice does not itself indicate unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply, and FCE's offer to repair the fuel line pipe at no cost fulfills their obligation under the CRA.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website