Not upheld: unfair charges and contract interpretation complaint against RCI Financial Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H complained that RCI unfairly charged her £210 for a missed service when she returned her vehicle at the end of a 36-month hire agreement, and that she should be refunded £48.99 for an MOT she was required to obtain. Miss H argued that RCI failed to make clear that servicing was required on a time-based schedule rather than when the vehicle indicated it was due, and that the vehicle's pre-registration meant she should not have needed an MOT. The ombudsman found that the agreement clearly stated Miss H was required to service the vehicle according to the manufacturer's recommendations, that a £210 charge would apply for missed services, and that the vehicle must be returned with valid MOT remaining. Although RCI waived the service charge as a gesture of goodwill, the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint and did not require RCI to refund the MOT cost.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the agreement clearly stated Miss H was required to service the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and that a £210 charge would apply for missed services. The manufacturer's recommendations were easily accessible through the manufacturer's website, vehicle handbook, or by contacting a dealership. Miss H missed a service in 2023 based on the manufacturer's time-based service interval for vehicles driven fewer than 18,000 miles per year. The ombudsman rejected Miss H's argument that she should have relied solely on dashboard notifications, as the vehicle would not have access to all information needed to assess when the next service was due. Regarding the MOT, the agreement explicitly required the vehicle to be returned with at least one month of valid MOT remaining, meaning an MOT would have been necessary regardless of the pre-registration date. The ombudsman found no evidence that Miss H would have rejected the vehicle on delivery had she known the registration date, as it already had over 100 miles on the clock.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website