Hire Purchase Decision Reference 2022-0284

Case OutcomePartially upheld
Reference2022-0284
Date23 August 2022
Year2022
Subject MatterHire Purchase
Finantial SectorBanking
Conducts Complained OfMisrepresentation (at point of sale or after),Dissatisfaction with customer service , Failure to process instructions in a timely manner
Decision Ref:
2022-0284
Sector:
Banking
Product / Service:
Hire Purchase
Conduct(s) complained of:
Misrepresentation (at point of sale or after)
Dissatisfaction with customer service
Failure to process instructions in a timely manner
Outcome:
Partially upheld
LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
This complaint arises from a new vehicle acquired by the First Complainant from a named
car dealership (the “Dealership”) in July 2017. The vehicle was financed by way of a Hire
Purchase agreement dated 26 July 2017, with a named Bank. The term of the Hire
Purchase agreement was 24 months and was scheduled to conclude in or around July
2019.
The purchase price of the vehicle was €72,000, of which €20,000 was financed by the hire
purchase agreement and the remaining balance of €52,000 by deposit/part exchange.
The Provider is a member of company group which manufactures cars. One of the
members of this group of companies will be referred to below as the “Car Company”.
Ownership of the hire purchase agreement was subsequently, in 2020, transferred from
the Bank to the Provider. The Provider confirmed to this Office in an email dated 26 March
2020, that it would honour all contracts entered into with the Bank, and all associated
obligations past, present and future. Consequently, this complaint is maintained against
the Provider, as successor in title to the Bank.
References in the below Decision to the actions or position of the Provider, should be
taken to include the actions or position of the Provider’s predecessor, the named Bank, as
appropriate.
- 2 -
/Cont’d…
The Complainants’ Case
The Complainants state that within 3 days of acquiring the vehicle, they noticed a loud
rattle emanating from the passenger side dash of the vehicle. The Complainants state that
they returned the vehicle to the Dealership the following week, and that the Dealership
advised them that it had dismantled the car dash, to investigate the issue and that the
rattle had been caused by an air conditioning pipe.
The Complainants submit that following this repair work, they began to have issues with
the radio, in so far as there was “static and interference, and the quality of the reception
had deteriorated greatly”.
The Complainants state that they believe the issues with the radio were caused by the
repairs carried out by the Dealership, because the Head Unit and all of the cables
associated with the car audio are located behind the passenger side dash. The
Complainants state that the Dealership investigated but said that it could not find any
issue with the radio.
Subsequently, on foot of advice the Complainants received from an audio specialist, the
Complainants requested the Dealership to change the head unit. The Dealership replaced
the head unit in February 2018, however, the Complainants state that this repair did not
improve the radio issues they were experiencing.
The Complainants state that the Car Company’s customer care subsequently informed
them that the part that had been fitted was different from the part the Dealership had
advised them had been fitted, and that they “now have concerns about whether or not this
was actually done”.
The Complainants submit that in December 2017, the vehicle’s brakes began to squeal
loudly, and that the vehicle was returned to the Dealership four times, on 22 December
2017, 10 January 2018, 25 January 2018 and 14 February 2018 respectively, for repairs but
that
“[o]n both occasions after repair, the noise has returned after a day or so and each
time become progressively worse. The dealership basically advised that this
is normal and due to weather, humidity, temperature etc. however we don't believe
that a new vehicle should make a consistent noise and it is not dependant on
weather, etc as it happens all day & in all weather.”
Finally, the Complainants submit that the vehicle’s fuel gauge was unreliable, insofar as on
filling the diesel tank, the fuel gauge rose disproportionately to the amount of diesel
added. The Complainant state that as a result, the fuel gauge did not accurately indicate
the number of kilometres they could drive before needing to refuel. The Complainants
state that when the Dealership investigated this issue, no fault was conveyed on its
diagnostic system.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT