Not upheld: unfair charges / service charge dispute complaint against Volvo Car UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained that Volvo UK unreasonably charged her £500 for a missing service under her regulated hire agreement. Volvo UK applied the charge when the car's annual service became overdue, having sent reminders via email, app notifications, and telephone calls. Miss C argued the charge was unfair because she had not received all communications, had been trying to arrange an appointment, and the car was eventually serviced. The ombudsman upheld Volvo UK's position, finding the charge was clearly disclosed in the agreement, Miss C was aware servicing was due through dashboard warnings and her own appointment attempts, and the charge legitimately related to a contractual maintenance requirement. The complaint was not upheld and no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that the £500 charge had a clear contractual basis and was sufficiently disclosed to Miss C. Although Miss C did not receive all email reminders due to an outdated email address on file, she was independently aware that servicing was due through her own attempts to arrange an appointment and the dashboard warning notification. The agreement did not limit the charge to cases of permanent damage or non-servicing, but rather applied where the car was not serviced within the required timeframe, which the ombudsman found Volvo UK had reasonably concluded had not been met. The ombudsman noted that questions about strict legal enforceability are matters for courts, but found the charge fair and reasonable as it was clearly disclosed, formed part of the agreement, and related to a legitimate contractual requirement concerning vehicle maintenance.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website