Not upheld: billing dispute - full monthly charge for partial month rental complaint against Ald Automotive Limited trading as Kia Contract Hire

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that Ald Automotive Limited charged him a full monthly rental for July 2025 after he returned a leased car part-way through that month. Ald relied on a clause stating Mr C would be liable for 'the month in which you terminate' following the extension period. The ombudsman found that while the wording could have been clearer, in the context of a monthly rental agreement with no express pro-rata provisions, it more likely referred to the full monthly contractual payment. The complaint was not upheld, and no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard given incomplete and contradictory information. While acknowledging the wording could have been clearer, the ombudsman concluded that in the context of a monthly rental agreement with no express pro-rata provisions, the phrase 'liable for the month in which you terminate' more likely referred to the full monthly contractual rental payment rather than a daily apportioned charge. The ombudsman found Ald did not act outside the agreement terms or treat Mr C unfairly.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website