Not upheld: mis-selling of car finance agreement complaint against Itc Compliance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms F complained that a car finance agreement was misrepresented by ICL, claiming she was not made aware that the part exchange value of her car would be insufficient to settle her existing finance agreement, resulting in negative equity being rolled into the new agreement and increasing her overall payments. ICL argued that all relevant information was provided clearly in pre-contractual documents. The ombudsman found that the paperwork clearly set out the purchase price, settlement amount, and shortfall, with no false statements made by ICL. Although Ms F had other options available, the ombudsman concluded that ICL provided sufficient information for an informed decision and did not treat her unfairly, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that ICL, as a credit broker, had provided clear pre-contractual information setting out the agreed purchase price, settlement of the old agreement, and the amount of new finance. The shortfall on the old agreement was clearly stated in the paperwork. No false statements were made by ICL, and Ms F achieved her objective of lower monthly payments. While Ms F had other options available, this does not mean the agreement was mis-sold. ICL provided sufficient information to enable Ms F to make an informed decision, and there was no evidence of undue pressure.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website