Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that he was coerced by a third party (X) into a hire purchase agreement with MotoNovo for a car he did not want or use. Mr K claimed X altered documents to inflate his salary and that he only agreed to the finance as a way to recover money X owed him. MotoNovo declined to allow Mr K to return the car, stating he had simply changed his mind. The ombudsman found that Mr K gave his authority for the agreement by providing documents and signing the contract, and that the text messages did not demonstrate coercion. The complaint was not upheld, and Mr K has since sold the car and repaid the outstanding balance.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr K gave his authority or apparent authority for the hire purchase agreement by sending documents to X and MotoNovo and signing the agreement form. While Mr K claimed the text messages demonstrated coercion, the ombudsman was not persuaded they showed he was controlled, threatened or coerced. The ombudsman noted inconsistencies in Mr K's testimony and found that MotoNovo's evidence outweighed Mr K's account of events. The ombudsman concluded MotoNovo should not have recognized unauthorized application or coercion.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website