Partially upheld: unfair charges for vehicle damage complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F complained about damage charges levied by CA Auto Finance UK Ltd when he returned a used car at the end of a hire purchase agreement. CA Auto charged for multiple damage items based on BVRLA fair wear and tear guidelines and inspection company market value loss data. The ombudsman found that most charges were fairly applied and consistent with the guidelines, but upheld the complaint in part by ordering CA Auto to waive charges for a tailgate dent (which fell within acceptable BVRLA limits of 15mm or less) and a headlight replacement (which would have improved the car beyond its original condition). The ombudsman rejected Mr F's argument that the lack of photographic evidence of the car's initial condition prevented charges, finding it more likely the car was supplied in good condition by a reputable dealership.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied BVRLA guidelines to assess whether damage fell outside fair wear and tear. The purpose of damage charges is to compensate for actual loss, not to put the business in a better position. The ombudsman found that most charges were consistent with BVRLA standards and the inspection company's market value loss approach. However, the tailgate dent appeared to be 15mm or less in diameter (within BVRLA acceptable limits) and the headlight charge was improper because it would have put the car in better condition than when supplied (the headlight was not new at inception). The ombudsman was satisfied the car was likely supplied in good condition by a reputable dealership despite lack of photographic evidence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website