Not upheld: PCP / HP mis-selling complaint against Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Limited (trading as Mercedes-Benz Finance)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained about £840.00 in charges MBFS applied when he returned a car under a hire purchase agreement. MBFS had identified damage at a defleet centre inspection that was not recorded at the initial collection inspection, which took place in poor lighting conditions. Mr D argued that MBFS had not proven the damage existed at the point of return, given the gap between collection and the later inspection. The ombudsman found that the defleet inspection by trained technicians was more reliable than the collection inspection, and that the short timeframe (less than six days) and minimal mileage (77 miles) between collection and defleet inspection made it more likely the damage developed during Mr D's four years of use rather than afterwards. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman placed greater weight on the defleet inspection carried out by trained technicians in appropriate conditions than on the collection inspection conducted in poor lighting. Although the collection inspection recorded no exterior damage, the ombudsman found it more likely that the poor lighting conditions meant damage was not identified. Given that the defleet inspection occurred less than six days after collection with only 77 miles travelled, and that MBFS confirmed no damage was reported during transit, the ombudsman concluded it was more probable that the damage developed during the four years and 30,446 miles of Mr D's use rather than during the brief period after collection. The photographs from the defleet inspection appeared consistent with damage that developed over time rather than recent damage.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website