Partially upheld: unfair charges on vehicle return; customer service failures complaint against Toyota Financial Services (UK) PLC trading as Redline Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Miss F complained about charges levied by Redline Finance when she returned a used car financed through a hire purchase agreement. Redline Finance charged for damage beyond fair wear and tear and missing services, applying BVRLA industry guidance. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding that while some damage charges were fairly applied, Redline Finance failed to adequately demonstrate that damage to the Door RHF (chips) and LHR wheel exceeded the guidance thresholds due to poor quality inspection photographs lacking measurement aids. The ombudsman ordered waiver of these two charges (£35 and £119.70) while upholding other damage charges and the £175 customer service compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied BVRLA guidance proportionately to the vehicle's age and mileage rather than rigidly. For the Door RHF chips charge (£119.70), the inspection photograph lacked measurement aids and clarity (raindrops obscured the image), preventing clear demonstration that damage exceeded the 3mm guidance threshold. For the LHR wheel charge (£35), insufficient evidence demonstrated damage exceeded the 50mm guidance. However, scratches to bumper and panels, and wheel damage to LHF and RHF, were sufficiently evidenced as exceeding guidance. The missing service history charge was upheld as Miss F's documentation was informal and incomplete. Customer service compensation was deemed reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website