Veste

Partially upheld: breach of Direct Debit Guarantee notice requirements complaint against LEX AUTOLEASE LIMITED

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6226222 of 2026-04-07T00:00:00+00:00. breach of Direct Debit Guarantee notice requirements complaint against LEX AUTOLEASE LIMITED. Outcome: Partially upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6226222
Decision date2026-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
FirmLEX AUTOLEASE LIMITED
Productvehicle finance - personal contract hire
Claim typebreach of Direct Debit Guarantee notice requirements
OutcomePartially upheld
RemedyPay Mr T £75 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to comply with Direct Debit Guarantee notice requirements.

Summary

Mr T complained that Lex Autolease charged him £234 for road fund licence following legislative changes to Vehicle Excise Duty and collected it by direct debit without sufficient notice. The ombudsman found the underlying charge was valid under the contract terms, which allowed for VED increases from legislative changes. However, Lex failed to demonstrate compliance with the Direct Debit Guarantee requirement to provide at least 10 working days' advance notice of the amount and collection date. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, ordering £75 compensation for distress and inconvenience while declining to refund the properly due charge.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the £234 charge was validly applied under the contract terms allowing for VED increases from legislative changes, Lex failed to demonstrate compliance with the Direct Debit Guarantee requirements. The guarantee requires at least 10 working days' advance notice of the amount and collection date. Although Lex claimed notification was issued, it could not provide sufficient evidence that this was sent to or received by Mr T within the required timeframe. This constituted a service failing, though not grounds for refunding the underlying charge which was properly due.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
LEX AUTOLEASE LIMITED, all decisions11640%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website