Excess mileage charges

The consumer’s issue:

“I took out a service plan for my hatchback to cover three service intervals up to 30,000 miles, which were all completed within the specified timeframe. I therefore decided to purchase another plan for two additional services at 40,000 and 50,000 miles. The first was carried out fine, but when I arranged to have the free MOT, which was included in the initial three-year plan, I received an unexpected invoice for exceeding the 30,000-mileage cap. However, I strongly disagree with the fact that there was no mention anywhere that I might incur extra costs if I took advantage of the free MOT at this point, bearing in mind I had already used the first service interval (40,000 miles) from the new plan.

I reported my complaint to the dealership, and they said that the amount due would not to be taken from my account until my dispute was resolved, but they still went ahead and took the money.

To resolve my dispute, I am looking for the charge to be cancelled in its entirety, and to receive compensation for the time wasted, and an apology for not being treated fairly by the business.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • In regards to the complaint, we can confirm that the consumer would been given every opportunity to read through the documentation provided in relation to any excess mileage charges before they signed the agreement.
  • The key facts about the plan would also have been explained to the consumer verbally, and they would have had the chance to ask any questions at that time.
  • The excess mileage charges were made by the financial services arm of our business, and they have written to the consumer stating in their final response that the excess mileage charge was applicable as per the agreement signed by them.
  • Therefore, we are not able to assist the consumer further on this matter.

The adjudication outcome:

  • After carefully reviewing the documentation provided by both parties, and considering that the service plan agreement was not directly with the dealership, The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the business failed to exercise reasonable skill and care when working on the consumer’s vehicle.
  • Additionally, the adjudicator found no indication that the consumer had not been given an opportunity to review the documentation, including the excess mileage charges, before signing the agreement.
  • Therefore, the adjudicator determined that the dealership had not provided inaccurate or misleading information to the consumer with respect to the service plan.
  • The consumer was advised that, any issues related to the charges received, should be addressed to the finance company, with whom they had the agreement.
  • Therefore, based on the facts of the case, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour.

The response to the adjudication outcome:

  • The business accepted the outcome and complied with it.
  • However, the consumer raised a challenge against the decision, expressing their disagreement with the outcome, and questioned the application of the excess mileage charges.
  • The consumer emphasised that they had already completed the fourth service under a subsequent service plan, and believed they should not be charged for the mileage associated with the complimentary MOT, as it was not part of the original three-interval service agreement.
  • Despite the objections and subsequent request for a review, the adjudicator stood by their decision, which remained unchanged.
  • Consequently, the consumer escalated the complaint to the final stage of The Motor Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process by requesting a final decision.

The response to the adjudication outcome:

  • The business accepted the outcome and complied with it.
  • However, the consumer raised a challenge against the decision, expressing their disagreement with the outcome, and questioned the application of the excess mileage charges.
  • The consumer emphasised that they had already completed the fourth service under a subsequent service plan, and believed they should not be charged for the mileage associated with the complimentary MOT, as it was not part of the original three-interval service agreement.
  • Despite the objections and subsequent request for a review, the adjudicator stood by their decision, which remained unchanged.
  • Consequently, the consumer escalated the complaint to the final stage of The Motor Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process by requesting a final decision.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

  • After careful consideration, the ombudsman found that the excess mileage charges received by the consumer were correct according to the contract.
  • However, the ombudsman evaluated the actions of the business leading up to these charges, and determined that they could have provided better advice regarding the implications of the consumer accepting the “free” MOT.
  • The ombudsman noted that the business was aware of the consumer’s mileage when offering the MOT, and should have communicated the implications of accepting what was assumed to be a free test.
  • Consequently, the ombudsman came to a different conclusion to the adjudicator, meaning the consumer’s complaint was upheld in their favour due to the business’s failure to provide accurate information.
  • In addition, a contribution of £200 by the business towards the excess mileage charges amounting to over £500 was recommended.

The response to the ombudsman’s final decision:

  • The consumer and the business both expressed their challenges to the decision, with the consumer seeking a higher refund, and the business acknowledging the potential unfairness.
  • The dealership also suggested that the complaint should be directed to the finance company with whom the consumer had the contract.
  • However, the ombudsman re-iterated that the dealership failed to advise the consumer about the implications of accepting the supposedly free MOT.
  • It was evident that the business was aware of the excess mileage and had already serviced the vehicle, documenting the exceeded mileage.
  • Therefore, it was maintained that the business could have provided better guidance to the consumer.
  • Regarding the consumer’s response, the ombudsman noted that they sought a 100% refund, but it was pointed out that, according to the contract, the excess charges were valid, plus the consumer had proof of this in the documentation, and had a responsibility to be aware of this also.
  • Thus, while the business could have done more to inform the consumer, the consumer’s actions also contributed to being subject to the excess mileage charges.
  • Considering all the information, no changes to the decision were deemed necessary, as it appropriately recognised the role played by both parties in the incurred charges.
  • Based on this assessment, the ombudsman recommended that the business should provide the consumer with a payment of £200 as a remedy towards the excess mileage charges.