Not upheld: misrepresentation by omission / failure to disclose car's previous use as taxi complaint against Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited trading as Audi Financial Services UK Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R purchased a used car under a PCP agreement with Audi Financial Services in January 2024 for £26,399. In May 2025, he discovered the car had been previously registered as a taxi, which he claimed was not disclosed to him and would negatively impact its resale value. The ombudsman found no misrepresentation by omission because the dealership conducted reasonable HPI checks and manufacturer-guided inspections that revealed no indicators of taxi use, the previous owner signed a declaration confirming non-commercial use, and there was insufficient evidence the dealership should have been aware of the taxi registration. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal test for misrepresentation, requiring both a false statement of fact and inducement. No false statement was made as the online advert made no reference to the car's history and Mr R provided no evidence of explicit conversations with the dealership about its history. Regarding misrepresentation by omission, the ombudsman found the dealership and finance provider conducted reasonable checks using industry-standard HPI checks and manufacturer guidance. These checks revealed no indicators of taxi use, and the previous owner's signed declaration confirmed non-commercial use. The ombudsman rejected the argument that because online platform Q later discovered the taxi registration, the dealership should have done the same, finding the dealership's checks were adequate in the circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website