Partially upheld: Service failures generally complaint against LEASYS UK LTD

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained about LEASYS's handling of a vehicle breakdown under a regulated hire agreement, specifically regarding lack of communication and expenses incurred while the car was being repaired. The vehicle suffered engine failure nine months into the agreement and was off the road from July to September 2025. Mr C claimed £684.88 in expenses including transport costs and hotel accommodation. LEASYS offered a pro-rata rental refund of £502.88 but refused to reimburse other expenses. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding the rental refund fair but rejecting additional expense claims to avoid double recovery, and awarding £200 for distress caused by poor communication.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, determining that repair was the appropriate statutory remedy and was provided. On the issue of compensation for loss of use, the ombudsman applied the principle that a business should refund rental payments OR reimburse alternative transport costs, but not both, to avoid double recovery. The pro-rata rental refund of £502.88 was considered fair as it placed Mr C in the position he would have been in had he not paid for an unusable vehicle. Other transport expenses (bus, taxi, car hire, temporary insurance) were rejected as they arose from the same loss of use. Hotel costs were rejected as not being direct, unavoidable transport expenses. The £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience was awarded to reflect poor communication and delays in arranging the refund.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website