Not upheld: termination of finance agreement, repossession, vehicle sale, default reporting, personalised number plate retention complaint against BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED trading as Alphera Financial Services

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K complained that BMWFS unfairly terminated his hire purchase agreement, repossessed and sold his car at an allegedly low price, pursued him for a remaining balance including post-termination interest, reported a default to his credit file, and failed to allow him to retain his personalised registration plate. BMWFS defended its actions as being in accordance with the agreement terms, which permitted termination where the car was no longer in the customer's possession or control and where the registered keeper had changed. The ombudsman found that the agreement terms were properly applied, the balance was calculated fairly under Consumer Credit Act requirements, the vehicle was sold through a proper auction process without evidence of undervaluation, and the default was fairly reported as the account status justified it. The ombudsman concluded that BMWFS had not acted unfairly or outside the agreement terms and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the agreement terms permitted termination where the car was no longer in the customer's possession or control, where another person became the registered keeper, or where circumstances materially affected the car or the customer's ability to comply. These circumstances applied following the police seizure and registered keeper changes. The balance was calculated in accordance with the agreement and Consumer Credit Act requirements, including a statutory rebate. The car was sold at auction without evidence of improper process or unreasonably low pricing. The default notice specifically warned Mr K to contact the DVLA to retain the registration plate. A default can fairly be reported where a balance is disputed if the reporting accurately reflects the account status, which it did here.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website