Upheld: misrepresentation by omission regarding existing service plan complaint against Volvo Car Financial Services UK Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6379321 of 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00. misrepresentation by omission regarding existing service plan complaint against Volvo Car Financial Services UK Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6379321 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Volvo Car Financial Services UK Ltd |
| Product | conditional sale agreement (car finance) |
| Claim type | misrepresentation by omission regarding existing service plan |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Volvo must: (1) recalculate the finance agreement on the basis that no interest has been charged; (2) refund the interest proportion of monthly payments Mr M has paid; (3) apply 8% simple yearly interest on refunds from payment date to refund date; (4) pay £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience within 28 days (with 8% interest if paid late). Volvo must provide tax certificate if HMRC requires tax to be deducted from interest. |
Summary
Mr M purchased a used car via conditional sale agreement with Volvo in June 2023, taking finance of £5,000 over 24 months primarily because the dealership offered two free services as an incentive. However, the previous owner had already purchased a three-service agreement that carried forward with the car, with two services remaining. Internal emails prove Volvo knew of this existing plan before Mr M collected the car but failed to disclose it to him. Mr M only discovered the existing plan in 2025 and complained that he would not have financed the car had he known. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding misrepresentation by omission, and ordered Volvo to refund all interest charged, apply 8% interest to the refunds, and pay £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 deems the dealership's communications to be made as agent of Volvo, making Volvo liable for any misrepresentation. A misrepresentation by omission occurred because the existence of the existing service plan was known to Volvo before supply but not disclosed to Mr M. This omission induced Mr M to finance the car, as evidenced by his substantial deposit and minimal finance amount taken specifically to qualify for the free servicing incentive. The ombudsman found Mr M's argument compelling that he would not have financed the car had he known about the existing plan. The emails prove only one service plan could operate, so Mr M did not receive the two free services linked to the finance agreement as promised.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Volvo Car Financial Services UK Ltd, all decisions | 1 | 100% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website