Not upheld: contract termination, default notice application, settlement figure discrepancies, customer service inconsistencies complaint against BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs I complained that BMWFS unfairly terminated her hire purchase agreement and applied a default notice, claiming she had been given inconsistent settlement figures and poor customer service. She had fallen into arrears throughout the 48-month agreement and requested a one-month extension in late March 2025 to pay the optional final balloon payment of £11,210.54. BMWFS issued a formal extension offer letter on 24 April 2025 requiring Mrs I to confirm acceptance, but she did not respond. BMWFS then issued a default notice on 23 May 2025 and terminated the agreement in July 2025. The ombudsman found that BMWFS acted reasonably and in accordance with the agreement terms, as Mrs I had a history of arrears and failed to respond to the extension offer, making termination a proportionate response.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs I's finance agreement clearly stated that BMWFS could terminate if repayments were not maintained. The evidence showed Mrs I fell into arrears throughout the agreement. Although BMWFS offered a one-month extension via letter dated 24 April 2025 requiring confirmation, Mrs I did not respond. The default notice issued on 23 May 2025 provided clear information about the amount due (£11,210.54) and the deadline (12 June 2025). The ombudsman concluded it was reasonable for BMWFS to prevent further arrears from accruing and to terminate the agreement in July 2025 when no resolution was reached. The ombudsman also found insufficient evidence that Mrs I was treated unfairly regarding the settlement figure discrepancies or call centre inconsistencies to warrant removing the default.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website