Not upheld: misleading information about agreement terms complaint against Hippo Vehicle Solutions Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs A complained that Hippo Vehicle Solutions, a credit broker, misled her about the length of a car finance agreement by providing quotations referring to a 36-month term when she ultimately entered into a 48-month agreement with finance company P. Mrs A discovered the discrepancy in 2025 and sought compensation for costs incurred. The ombudsman found that while Hippo's documentation was inconsistent, the signed finance agreement clearly stated the 48-month term, and Mrs A should have reviewed the contractual documentation before signing. The complaint was not upheld, and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Hippo's documentation was inconsistent with the final agreement, the most persuasive evidence was the signed finance documentation which clearly stated a 48-month term. Mrs A was provided with contractual documentation before completion that clearly set out the 48-month term, and it was reasonable to expect her to review these terms before signing. The inconsistency in Hippo's documentation was insufficient to make Hippo responsible for the consequences of an agreement whose terms were clearly set out in the signed contractual documents.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website