Partially upheld: unfair charges and responsibility for dealership advice complaint against FCE Bank Plc trading as Ford Credit

Decision detail

Summary

Miss L complained that Ford Credit unfairly held her responsible for excess mileage and damage charges after she returned a financed car, claiming she relied on information from a Ford dealership about negative equity and entering a new PCP agreement. Ford Credit argued it was not responsible for dealership advice and that the charges arose under the contractual terms. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding that while the excess mileage charge was valid and Ford Credit was not responsible for dealership statements, the NSF alloy wheel damage charge lacked sufficient photographic evidence to justify it under BVRLA standards and should be waived.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while dealerships formed part of the end of agreement process, there was insufficient evidence that Ford Credit provided the alleged advice about negative equity and PCP agreements or should be held responsible for dealership statements. The excess mileage charge arose under the contractual terms of the agreement and the car demonstrably exceeded the permitted mileage. However, regarding the NSF alloy wheel damage charge, Ford Credit failed to provide sufficient evidence that the damage exceeded BVRLA fair wear and tear standards, as the inspection photograph was too dark to clearly show damage exceeding the 50mm circumference standard.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website