Not upheld: disputed deposit recording and accuracy of finance agreement terms complaint against Close Brothers Limited trading as Close Brothers Motor Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that Close Brothers incorrectly recorded a £200 deposit on his March 2020 hire purchase agreement when he had not paid any deposit. Close Brothers could not provide evidence of how the deposit was paid but explained that dealers typically arrange deposits as part of the application process. The ombudsman found that the contemporaneous agreement reliably reflects the position at the time and that the absence of later documentary evidence does not prove the deposit was not applied. The complaint was not upheld, and the ombudsman also rejected Mr R's claim that the deposit recording damaged his credit file.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard given incomplete and contradictory information. The contemporaneous finance agreement recording the £200 deposit is reliable evidence of what occurred at the time of arrangement. The absence of documentary evidence years later does not prove the deposit was not applied. It is not unusual for deposits to be introduced or supported by dealers as part of the overall deal. A deposit applied at the start of an agreement is not reported to credit reference agencies and does not affect credit files in the way Mr R suggested.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website