Not upheld: reasonableness of charges for vehicle damage upon return; handling of vehicle collection process complaint against Santander Consumer (UK) Plc trading as Volvo Car Financial Service

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs Q complained about charges levied by Volvo when she returned a hired car at the end of her lease agreement, disputing the extent of damages identified and the conduct of the inspection process. Volvo partially upheld her complaint, removing £144 in charges and offering £75 compensation. The FOS investigator and ombudsman reviewed each charge against BVRLA fair wear and tear guidance and found the remaining charges to be reasonable, as the damages (including scratches through to primer, holes in paintwork, and dents on swage lines) fell outside acceptable wear and tear thresholds. The ombudsman also found the three-hour delay between inspection and collection to be within contractual terms and standard process. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the BVRLA fair wear and tear guidance as the industry standard for determining reasonable charges. Each charge was assessed against this guidance, examining the inspection photographs and report. The ombudsman found that the majority of damages fell outside fair wear and tear thresholds (scratches exceeding 25mm, damage through to primer, holes in paintwork, dents on swage lines, wheel rim damage exceeding 50mm). The ombudsman accepted the inspection report as the best available evidence despite Mrs Q's concerns about photograph quality. Regarding the collection delay, the ombudsman found it was within the contractual terms which permitted collection up to three working days after inspection, and Mrs Q should have been aware of this possibility.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website