Upheld: misrepresentation - sat-nav functionality complaint against FCE Bank Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6154107 of 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00. misrepresentation - sat-nav functionality complaint against FCE Bank Plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6154107 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | FCE Bank Plc |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | misrepresentation - sat-nav functionality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | FCE Bank Plc must: (1) End the agreement with no liability for monthly rentals after collection and refund any overpayment; (2) Take back the vehicle without charging for collection; (3) Refund deposit of £4,360 plus 8% simple interest from date of payment to date of refund (retaining any dealer contribution portion); (4) Refund 10% of monthly rentals for impaired use plus 8% simple interest from date of payment to date of refund; (5) Refund tow bar cost of £698 plus 8% simple interest from date of payment to date of refund; (6) Pay £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (7) Remove any adverse information about the agreement from Mr R's credit file. |
Summary
Mr R acquired a car through a hire purchase agreement financed by FCE in July 2024, specifically chosen for its connected navigation system for towing caravans. He was told the sat-nav would allow entry of trailer specifications to plan suitable routes, but after three inspections, it was confirmed the necessary specifications were not present in the vehicle. FCE upheld his misrepresentation complaint in October 2025 and offered vehicle rejection with limited compensation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered FCE to reject the vehicle, refund the deposit with interest, refund 10% of monthly payments for impaired use with interest, refund the tow bar cost with interest, pay £200 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information, but rejected Mr R's claims for broader financial losses such as tax implications.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that a misrepresentation occurred because Mr R was told the sat-nav functionality would be available following tow bar fitting, but it was not. Mr R was induced to enter the agreement based on this false information. The ombudsman considered that vehicle rejection was appropriate, and assessed what additional remedies were fair: deposit refund with interest, 10% of monthly payments for impaired use with interest (as the car was mechanically sound and usable without the feature), tow bar refund with interest (as it would not be transferable to another vehicle), but not the standalone sat-nav (purchased after complaint and easily transferable). The ombudsman rejected claims for tax implications and other exit costs as not being FCE's responsibility. £200 compensation was deemed fair for distress and inconvenience.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| FCE Bank Plc, all decisions | 298 | 38% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 18,521 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website