Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R purchased a used car through a hire purchase agreement with MotoNovo in April 2021. In 2025, when attempting to sell the car, he learned through an HPI check that it had previously been used as a hire car, which he claimed was not disclosed and caused a £3,000 loss. MotoNovo disputed the misrepresentation claim, arguing there was no requirement to disclose prior hire use unless it materially affected the car's condition. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence the car had been used for hire, noting the recent HPI check contained no such indication and the mileage was below average for a car of that age. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no false statement of fact regarding the car's previous use, as the dealership did not explicitly state the car had not been used for hire. Regarding non-disclosure, the ombudsman concluded there was insufficient evidence the car had been used as a hire car, noting the recent HPI check contained no such indication and the low mileage was inconsistent with hire car usage. Even if the car had been used for hire, the ombudsman found no evidence the dealership knew or should have known about this, and therefore could not conclude the dealership unreasonably failed to disclose material information. The claim of £3,000 loss was unsupported by documentation from dealership E.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website