Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that BMWFS acted unfairly by refusing to accept payments and terminating his hire purchase agreement after discovering the financed vehicle was registered in his company's name rather than his personal name, despite this arrangement existing for almost three years. The dealer had advised Mr S that this arrangement was acceptable and BMWFS had accepted company account payments throughout. The ombudsman found no persuasive evidence that BMWFS knew or should have known about the company registration from the outset or that it had agreed to depart from the contractual terms. Once BMWFS became aware of the breach following missed payments in late 2025, the ombudsman concluded it acted reasonably in requiring compliance with the agreement terms and refusing further company payments. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although the arrangement had existed since the outset and BMWFS accepted payments for almost three years, there was insufficient evidence that BMWFS knew or should have known about the company registration or agreed to depart from contractual terms. Once BMWFS became aware of the breach, it did not act unreasonably in requiring compliance with the agreement terms. The ombudsman found no evidence of bad faith or manufactured breach, and while allowing Mr S to correct the registration may have been an alternative course, fairness did not require BMWFS to adopt that approach.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website