Upheld: PCP / HP mis-selling complaint against Santander Consumer (UK) Plc trading as Santander Consumer Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S purchased a used car under a conditional sale agreement with SCF in October 2023 for approximately £15,300. In August 2025, he discovered a significant mileage discrepancy in the car's servicing history, with the recorded mileage being approximately 35,000 miles less than indicated in service records from 2021. Although SCF claimed this was a typographical error and requested an independent inspection, the ombudsman found that the dealer was aware of the discrepancy before Mr S entered the agreement, as the servicing history was provided on 9 October 2023. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding a misleading omission under consumer protection law, and directed SCF to end the agreement, refund the £7,500 deposit with interest, collect the car at no cost, and pay £150 compensation, while retaining Mr S's monthly payments to cover his use of the vehicle.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that there was a misleading omission by SCF's agent (the dealer). Although there is no clear evidence the odometer was tampered with, the significant mileage discrepancy in the servicing history should have been disclosed to Mr S before he entered the agreement. The dealer was aware of, or ought to have been aware of, the discrepancy as the servicing history was provided before the agreement was signed. SCF failed to conduct adequate pre-agreement checks that would have highlighted the discrepancy. The ombudsman applied CTSI guidance which states that failing to provide information about mileage discrepancies when the trader is aware of it constitutes a misleading omission and unfair practice. Mr S would not have entered into the agreement had he been fully aware of the discrepancy, which materially affected the car's value and marketability.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website