Not upheld: PCP / HP mis-selling complaint against KINTO UK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs P complained that Kinto unfairly applied £315 in end-of-contract damage fees after she returned a leased car. She disputed the charges, claiming the inspection process was unfair and lacked transparency, and that some damage (particularly a scratched bonnet) occurred during the inspection rather than before. The ombudsman found that while the inspection process could have been more transparent, the hire agreement did not require damage to be flagged during inspection for charges to apply. Upon careful analysis of the inspection photographs against BVRLA guidelines, the ombudsman determined that all identified damage exceeded fair wear and tear standards for a 4-year-old car with 30,000 miles, and that the scratched bonnet likely resulted from the professional refurbishment work Mrs P had undertaken. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the inspection process lacked transparency in not flagging all damage to Mrs P at the time, the hire agreement terms did not require damage to be flagged during inspection for charges to apply. The ombudsman carefully analysed each area of damage against BVRLA guidelines and concluded all identified damage exceeded fair wear and tear standards for a 4-year-old car with 30,000 miles. The scratched bonnet was likely caused during the professional refurbishment work based on the shape of the scratch being consistent with polishing/rubbing motion, not inspector contact.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website