Not upheld: misrepresentation and misdescription of vehicle mileage complaint against Admiral Financial Services Limited trading as Admiral Money

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that a car acquired via hire purchase with Admiral was misrepresented due to a mileage discrepancy: an August 2023 MOT showed 28,301 miles but a July 2025 MOT showed 27,550 miles. A third-party specialist inspection in November 2025 concluded the car's actual mileage matched the odometer reading and was consistent with the mileage recorded at point of supply. The ombudsman found no evidence of misrepresentation or misdescription, determining the August 2023 MOT discrepancy was likely an administrative error where kilometres were recorded as miles. The complaint was not upheld, and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The key finding was that the third-party specialist report provided mechanical evidence that the car's actual mileage matched the odometer reading and was consistent with the mileage recorded at point of supply. The August 2023 MOT discrepancy was likely a keying error where kilometres were recorded as miles. The ombudsman also noted that if the mileage issue was genuinely important to Mr A, he should have identified and investigated it before entering the agreement, as MOT history is publicly available online.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website