Not upheld: misrepresentation / misdescription of goods complaint against Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that a car acquired through a PCP agreement with MBFS was misrepresented because he claims he was told it would include an integrated dashcam and augmented reality features, but the car supplied did not include them. Mr M says he discussed these features with the dealership during ordering and relied on brochure material supporting his understanding. The dealership denied any such discussion took place and stated the car matched the correct specification ordered. The ombudsman found the applicable brochure from July 2024 did not list these features as included with Mr M's trim level and found insufficient evidence of a false statement of fact being made. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the test for misrepresentation under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 56. Since all communications about the features were verbal with no written evidence, the ombudsman had to determine on balance what was more likely to have occurred. The applicable brochure from July 2024 did not list the dashcam or AR as included with Mr M's specific trim level, only with the high-performance version. The ombudsman found the sales executive's post-delivery attempts to locate the features, while suggesting some uncertainty, were insufficient to prove an earlier misrepresentation had occurred, particularly given they occurred over a month after ordering. The ombudsman rejected the argument that absence of express exclusion in the brochure meant the features were included, noting brochures positively identify included features rather than list all excluded ones.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website