The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a new luxury SUV in November 2020 on a Personal Contract Plan (PCP) hire purchase agreement, but the vehicle was put into my name instead of that of my company.
I repeatedly told the salesperson at the dealership that the agreement should be a lease under my company’s name, as 50% of the VAT could be reclaimed by the company, with the balance being an allowance finance expense.
I was assured again and again by the salesperson that the finance scheme was the same for both personal and business purchases, and that my company would still be able to claim the applicable VAT allowances. I was even shown my VAT number on their system to put my mind at ease, and the monthly payments were setup using my company’s bank details.
To resolve my complaint, I believe the current personal finance agreement should be cancelled because it was mis-sold, and a new lease agreement should be drawn up under the name of my company as I intended. The business should also issue an apology and train their staff properly.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We never received any business details from the consumer, and both the signed finance agreement (which stated it was a PCP hire purchase agreement and not a lease agreement) and order form were completed using personal information.
- We also have documentation with the sale type ticked as “personal” by the consumer, with the business left blank, thereby indicating that this was not a business purchase. In addition, no VAT number was provided.
- Therefore, based on the above, we dispute the consumer’s allegation that we have breached The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the burden of proof was on the consumer to demonstrate that they had been misled by the business at the point of sale.
- The adjudicator noted and pointed out that there was a lack of documented evidence that the staff at the business did not clearly set out the terms of the personal hire agreement, or that the vehicle would not be financed by the consumer’s company.
- The adjudicator also said that a significant amount of the consumer’s complaint was based on verbal conversations. In such cases, more weight is given to written and audio proof. As there was no written or recorded evidence of the conversations that took place, each party was given an equal weighting in terms of their account.
- In addition, the adjudicator explained there was an absence of any documented evidence which was contrary to the final agreement drawn up by the business.
- Therefore, there was no breach of the Vehicle Sales Code in terms of the financing of the vehicle, and the consumer’s complaint could not be upheld in their favour.
Conclusion:
- No response was received to the adjudication outcome by either party, and the case was closed.
