Upheld: misrepresentation of finance agreement terms and mishandling of cancellation request complaint against Automotive Compliance Limited (ACL)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that a dealership (V), acting as an appointed representative of ACL, misrepresented a personal contract purchase finance agreement (Agreement B) by claiming it was a placeholder and that funds had already been released. Mr H collected the car on 6 October 2024 without alternative finance in place, and when he requested cancellation on 7 October, the request was not processed. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and found that while V/ACL could have handled matters better, Mr H was not disadvantaged as he would have needed multiple visits regardless and had options to arrange alternative finance within the 14-day cooling-off period. ACL was directed to pay £200 compensation for trouble and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman accepted the investigator's conclusion that while Agreement B was not misrepresented to Mr H, V/ACL could have done better. The ombudsman found that Mr H would have needed to make a second visit regardless of what happened, as he had no funds to purchase the car on 4 October and the lender could not release funds the same day. On 6 October, without alternative finance in place, Mr H could not reasonably have expected to collect the car without relying on Agreement B. The ombudsman concluded that Mr H was not disadvantaged as he had a 14-day cooling-off period and could have arranged alternative finance before or after collection. Therefore, £200 compensation was fair and reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website