Not upheld: misrepresentation of finance agreement terms complaint against Santander Consumer (UK) Plc trading as Santander Consumer Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs U complained that Santander misrepresented a conditional sale agreement for a used car by including a balloon payment she claimed she did not want. She alleged the dealership salesperson misled her about the payment structure. Santander argued the agreement documentation clearly set out all terms including the balloon payment. The ombudsman found no sufficient evidence of misrepresentation, noting the agreement documentation was clear, the payment structure was typical for this type of lending, and the financial terms were consistent with the vehicle price. The complaint was not upheld. Mrs U also raised separate concerns about car quality which had not been referred to Santander and were outside the scope of this decision.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal test for misrepresentation under Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, requiring an untrue statement that materially influenced the consumer's decision. While Mrs U claimed the salesperson discussed different terms, insufficient evidence supported this assertion. The agreement documentation clearly presented the balloon payment, and the financial structure was typical and consistent with the vehicle price and monthly payments, indicating no misrepresentation occurred.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website