Not upheld: misrepresentation of mileage allowance and unfair sales practices regarding GAP insurance complaint against RCI Financial Services Limited trading as Mobilize Financial Services

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M complained that RCI misrepresented a hire purchase agreement by setting the mileage allowance at 6,000 miles per year despite her advising the dealership she would complete at least 10,000 miles annually, and that she was not given the opportunity to shop around for GAP insurance. The ombudsman found the excess mileage charges were clearly set out in the written agreement and, absent supporting evidence beyond Mrs M's testimony, determined there was insufficient evidence of misrepresentation. The ombudsman also found RCI could not be held responsible for the GAP insurance complaint as RCI did not finance that product. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal test for misrepresentation under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, requiring an untrue statement that materially influenced the consumer to enter the contract. While Mrs M claimed the mileage charge was not accurately explained, the ombudsman found the excess mileage charges were clearly set out in the agreement itself. In the absence of evidence supporting Mrs M's testimony over the written agreement, the ombudsman determined there was insufficient evidence of misrepresentation. Regarding GAP insurance, the ombudsman found RCI could not be held responsible as they did not finance or sell the GAP insurance product.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website