Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods, unfair charges on voluntary termination, default registration complaint against Close Brothers Limited trading as Close Brothers Motor Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained about a used car supplied under a hire purchase agreement with Close Brothers, claiming unsatisfactory quality and disputing charges applied after voluntary termination. The investigator found the car was of satisfactory quality at supply but that Close Brothers unfairly charged for excess mileage and pre-existing front wing damage due to ambiguous contract terms. Both parties agreed with this assessment and Close Brothers waived those charges. However, Close Brothers had registered a default for non-payment of the undisputed £1,248.23 voluntary termination shortfall. The ombudsman found the default was appropriately registered within regulatory timeframes and that Mr B had the opportunity to pay this amount while disputing other charges, so the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman focused solely on the outstanding issue of the default registration, as the other complaints had been settled by agreement between both parties. The ombudsman found that Close Brothers acted within the Information Commissioners Office guidelines by registering the default 3.5 months after voluntary termination (within the 3-6 month expected timeframe). Although Mr B disputed the charges, he had the opportunity to pay the undisputed £1,248.23 shortfall while continuing to dispute the other charges, but chose not to do so. The ombudsman rejected Mr B's argument that he 'had to' stop paying due to service issues, as these related to settled matters and did not prevent payment of the shortfall amount.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website