Salary sacrifice car schemes – consumer rights warning

Sullypants

Grumpy_chap said:

Sullypants said:

If salary sacrifice users really had no consumer/ombudsman rights, that would leave hundreds of thousands exposed. 

Yes, there might be a gap as I acknowledged in my previous post.  That gap might be intentional or it might be oversight.
If there is a gap (and I genuinely believe the current rules mean there is and consumer rights do not apply), that might require a rule change.

IF SS car users were to have consumer rights, how would any rules apply to the company car driver or individual with a car / car allowance choice who opts for the car? 
I can't see that the rules could differentiate, so that would mean consumer rights for all company car users.

AIUI, the current legal position is that the individual earning £X terminates that contract of employment  and agrees a new contract of employment to earn (£X - £5k) (or whatever the SS amount is) plus company car.  Thereafter, the individual has a company car and cannot be differentiated from the individual who simply took a new job with a company car.

Sullypants said:

The paper contract is B2B (employer & Arval), but my complaint is about Arval’s conduct as an FCA regulated firm. They’ve refused referral rights and misled me. FOS decides jurisdiction, not Arval.

AIUI, there is no such thing as an "FCA regulated firm" as such.  There are FCA regulated activities and some firms are regulated for those activities.  Those firms can also carry out other business outside of their regulated arena.  I understand that the B2B contract between the employer and ARVAL would fall outside the regulated area.

You may feel that is not how it should be to reflect this scenario, but I understand the above is how it is with the current rules.

In fact, the listing for ARVAL states that there are some regulated and some unregulated activities carried out by the business:
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000MfRU1AAN
If your SS car is outside the regulated activities (which I really rather suspect it will be), then the FCA will likely simply say they cannot comment / case closed.

Sullypants said:

2. Consumer status: 

With salary sacrifice, I give up my own wages for the car and still pay BiK. That makes me the end payer and end user, i.e. a consumer under FCA/CRA definitions.

IF you are a consumer in this agreement to forfeit some salary in return for a car, then I still struggle to see how that consumer can have consumer rights against ARVAL (with whom there is no privity of contract).  The consumer rights would need to be claimed against the employer.

Sullypants said:

And just to be clear, FOS have already upheld two salary sacrifice complaints. They don’t mirror my situation exactly, but they do show that FOS has jurisdiction in salary sacrifice cases. So I’m not the first. 

I have missed it if you referenced this fact upthread.
If there is past history of the FOS commenting on SS matters, that might have sufficient detail to influence the understanding and comments made in the thread.
Would you be able to link the previous two judgements?

I have undertaken a search and can only find two cases:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4918736.pdf
MINI advised the individual the amount to pay to end their PCP early.
Based on that amount, the individual joined the SS scheme offered by the employer.
MINI then asked for more to end the PCP early.
That is a judgement about the early termination of a PCP scheme, not a judgement about SS.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4944001.pdf
Total loss claim and the insurer paid out insufficient to settle the value of the vehicle as determined by the SS provider.
Insurer required to meet a higher valuation for the total loss claim.
That is a judgement about the insurance valuation of a total loss vehicle, not a judgement about SS.

I understand your logic, and you’ve explained it pretty well. But here’s where I think the gap becomes dangerous if we accept it at face value:

1. Salary sacrifice does not = traditional company car: 

A traditional company car is provided at the employer’s discretion as part of a reward package. A salary sacrifice car is fundamentally different, it’s chosen, specified, and paid for by the employee out of their gross salary. That makes it mirror a private lease rather than a perk.

2. Regulated firm obligations:

You’re right that firms like Arval carry out both regulated and unregulated activities. But when the product supplied (a car lease/hire) is in substance a consumer product and they’re FCA regulated for motor finance, they don’t get to pick and choose when DISP applies. Otherwise, they could simply badge everything B2B and dodge FCA rules entirely.

3. Privity of contract point:

Yes, the paperwork is between employer and Arval. But the end payer and end user is the employee. That’s exactly why both the FCA’s DISP rules and the Consumer Rights Act define a consumer not by who signed the contract, but by who is acting outside trade/business and bearing the detriment. If rights only existed against the employer, it would mean the employer (who isn’t in the business of leasing cars) has stronger obligations than Arval (who are), which makes no sense?

4. Regulatory intent:

If the rules exclude salary sacrifice drivers from consumer protection, that leaves a rapidly growing group of consumers completely unprotected , which is either an oversight or a loophole firms are exploiting. The FCA and FOS exist to close those gaps, not brush them aside.

5. On FOS precedent:

apologies, you’re right, I was mistaken, only one (DRN-4944001) directly involves a salary sacrifice vehicle. That case concerned an insurance payout on a car provided through a salary sacrifice scheme.

The key relevance is that FOS explicitly accepted jurisdiction despite the car being obtained under salary sacrifice. They treated the complainant, Miss R, as an eligible consumer because she was the one making the payments via salary sacrifice and the one suffering the detriment. In other words, the Ombudsman looked at the substance of the arrangement, not just the contractual form.

My case is directly comparable. I am the end payer via salary sacrifice, I bear the cost through deductions from my wages, and I am the one suffering the detriment from an unreliable vehicle. The fact that FOS has already adjudicated on a salary sacrifice complaint confirms they do not automatically exclude these cases as B2B. Instead, they are willing to apply consumer protections where the individual is, in practice, acting as the consumer.

While I accept the technical contract structure creates this “grey zone,” the principle is clear. If an individual pays out of their wages for personal use of a product supplied by an FCA regulated firm, they are a consumer and should have redress. To deny that on a formality would create precisely the regulatory gap Parliament and the FCA have spent years trying to stop.

Grumpy_chap

Sullypants said:

I understand your logic, and you’ve explained it pretty well. But here’s where I think the gap becomes dangerous if we accept it at face value:

1. Salary sacrifice does not = traditional company car: 

A traditional company car is provided at the employer’s discretion as part of a reward package. A salary sacrifice car is fundamentally different, it’s chosen, specified, and paid for by the employee out of their gross salary. That makes it mirror a private lease rather than a perk.

I don't disagree that there could be a gap.
That gap could be by design or could be by oversight.
There could be a case for closing that gap.

A SS car is not really that different from a traditional company car.
It is entirely at the employer's discretion as to whether they wish to offer a SS car scheme to their employees.
That discretion by the employer to offer (or not offer) the SS scheme narrows the difference you cite.

Sullypants said:

2. Regulated firm obligations:

You’re right that firms like Arval carry out both regulated and unregulated activities. 

they could simply badge everything B2B and dodge FCA rules entirely

No they could not.
I think you understand the limitations of your own comment.

The agreement that ARVAL have in this case is clearly B2B.  I accept you don't like that reality.

Sullypants said:

3. Privity of contract point:

If rights only existed against the employer, it would mean the employer (who isn’t in the business of leasing cars) has stronger obligations than Arval (who are), which makes no sense?

Well, it does make sense.
If you buy a car from Employer Ltd, your consumer rights are with Employer Ltd.
You may also have warranty offered by ARVAL (or Mercedes), but warranty is in addition to and does not overrule any consumer rights.

On this point of the consumer rights being against the employer, this Reddit post makes a comment.  I do not for one moment consider that site to be a legal authority, but the comment is logical:
 - A consumer pays rent for the use of a car
 - A car provided by SS is subject to BiK
 - There would be no BiK if the individual were paying rent
 - The individual cannot have consumer rights for the SS car

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1cgsmcv/rejecting_a_faulty_car_on_salary_sacrifice/

Obviously, you will not agree.

Sullypants said:

5. On FOS precedent:

apologies, you’re right, I was mistaken, only one (DRN-4944001) directly involves a salary sacrifice vehicle. That case concerned an insurance payout on a car provided through a salary sacrifice scheme.

The key relevance is that FOS explicitly accepted jurisdiction despite the car being obtained under salary sacrifice. They treated the complainant, Miss R, as an eligible consumer because she was the one making the payments via salary sacrifice and the one suffering the detriment. 

I do not read that in the same way as you.
The employee (Miss R) was liable for the loss under the SS agreement and had insurance in place to underwrite that loss.
The compliant was all about the valuation of the loss assessed by the insurer.
The fact the car was SS was incidental.
Miss R was a consumer in regard to the car insurance.  That tells us nothing about the status of Miss R in regard to the SS car.

Sullypants

Grumpy_chap said:

Sullypants said:

If salary sacrifice users really had no consumer/ombudsman rights, that would leave hundreds of thousands exposed. 

Yes, there might be a gap as I acknowledged in my previous post.  That gap might be intentional or it might be oversight.
If there is a gap (and I genuinely believe the current rules mean there is and consumer rights do not apply), that might require a rule change.

IF SS car users were to have consumer rights, how would any rules apply to the company car driver or individual with a car / car allowance choice who opts for the car? 
I can't see that the rules could differentiate, so that would mean consumer rights for all company car users.

AIUI, the current legal position is that the individual earning £X terminates that contract of employment  and agrees a new contract of employment to earn (£X - £5k) (or whatever the SS amount is) plus company car.  Thereafter, the individual has a company car and cannot be differentiated from the individual who simply took a new job with a company car.

Sullypants said:

The paper contract is B2B (employer & Arval), but my complaint is about Arval’s conduct as an FCA regulated firm. They’ve refused referral rights and misled me. FOS decides jurisdiction, not Arval.

AIUI, there is no such thing as an "FCA regulated firm" as such.  There are FCA regulated activities and some firms are regulated for those activities.  Those firms can also carry out other business outside of their regulated arena.  I understand that the B2B contract between the employer and ARVAL would fall outside the regulated area.

You may feel that is not how it should be to reflect this scenario, but I understand the above is how it is with the current rules.

In fact, the listing for ARVAL states that there are some regulated and some unregulated activities carried out by the business:
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000MfRU1AAN
If your SS car is outside the regulated activities (which I really rather suspect it will be), then the FCA will likely simply say they cannot comment / case closed.

Sullypants said:

2. Consumer status: 

With salary sacrifice, I give up my own wages for the car and still pay BiK. That makes me the end payer and end user, i.e. a consumer under FCA/CRA definitions.

IF you are a consumer in this agreement to forfeit some salary in return for a car, then I still struggle to see how that consumer can have consumer rights against ARVAL (with whom there is no privity of contract).  The consumer rights would need to be claimed against the employer.

Sullypants said:

And just to be clear, FOS have already upheld two salary sacrifice complaints. They don’t mirror my situation exactly, but they do show that FOS has jurisdiction in salary sacrifice cases. So I’m not the first. 

I have missed it if you referenced this fact upthread.
If there is past history of the FOS commenting on SS matters, that might have sufficient detail to inform and influence the understanding and comments made in the thread.
Would you be able to link the previous two judgements?

I have undertaken a search and can only find two cases:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4918736.pdf
MINI advised the individual the amount to pay to end their PCP early.
Based on that amount, the individual joined the SS scheme offered by the employer.
MINI then asked for more to end the PCP early.
That is a judgement about the early termination of a PCP scheme, not a judgement about SS.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4944001.pdf
Total loss claim and the insurer paid out insufficient to settle the value of the vehicle as determined by the SS provider.
Insurer required to meet a higher valuation for the total loss claim.
That is a judgement about the insurance valuation of a total loss vehicle, not a judgement about SS.

Further to my point on privity of contract, here’s how I see it in simple terms:

• I pay for the car. The money comes straight out of my wages each month through salary sacrifice.
• I use the car. It’s for my personal and family use, not my employer’s.
• I suffer the problems. When it breaks down, I’m the one stranded, not my employer.

That makes me the consumer in practice.

Arval can’t just hide behind “no contract with you, no rights.” They’re FCA regulated, which means they must handle complaints properly and can’t wash their hands of responsibility when they’re the ones providing the car. And this isn’t just theory. The Ombudsman dealt with complaint DRN-4944001. 

Yes, the issue in that case was about insurance, but the principle is the same, the insurance was a service tied into the salary sacrifice package between the employer and the lease company, not directly between the individual and the lease or insurance provider. Yet FOS still accepted the complaint and treated the employee as the consumer, because she was the one paying (via her wages) and suffering the detriment.

So in the plainest terms: I pay. I use. I lose when it goes wrong. That makes me the consumer.

Sullypants

Grumpy_chap said:

Sullypants said:

I understand your logic, and you’ve explained it pretty well. But here’s where I think the gap becomes dangerous if we accept it at face value:

1. Salary sacrifice does not = traditional company car: 

A traditional company car is provided at the employer’s discretion as part of a reward package. A salary sacrifice car is fundamentally different, it’s chosen, specified, and paid for by the employee out of their gross salary. That makes it mirror a private lease rather than a perk.

I don't disagree that there could be a gap.
That gap could be by design or could be by oversight.
There could be a case for closing that gap.

A SS car is not really that different from a traditional company car.
It is entirely at the employer's discretion as to whether they wish to offer a SS car scheme to their employees.
That discretion by the employer to offer (or not offer) the SS scheme narrows the difference you cite.

Sullypants said:

2. Regulated firm obligations:

You’re right that firms like Arval carry out both regulated and unregulated activities. 

they could simply badge everything B2B and dodge FCA rules entirely

No they could not.
I think you understand the limitations of your own comment.

The agreement that ARVAL have in this case is clearly B2B.  I accept you don't like that reality.

Sullypants said:

3. Privity of contract point:

If rights only existed against the employer, it would mean the employer (who isn’t in the business of leasing cars) has stronger obligations than Arval (who are), which makes no sense?

Well, it does make sense.
If you buy a car from Employer Ltd, your consumer rights are with Employer Ltd.
You may also have warranty offered by ARVAL (or Mercedes), but warranty is in addition to and does not overrule any consumer rights.

On this point of the consumer rights being against the employer, this Reddit post makes a comment.  I do not for one moment consider that site to be a legal authority, but the comment is logical:
 - A consumer pays rent for the use of a car
 - A car provided by SS is subject to BiK
 - There would be no BiK if the individual were paying rent
 - The individual cannot have consumer rights for the SS car

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1cgsmcv/rejecting_a_faulty_car_on_salary_sacrifice/

Obviously, you will not agree.

Sullypants said:

5. On FOS precedent:

apologies, you’re right, I was mistaken, only one (DRN-4944001) directly involves a salary sacrifice vehicle. That case concerned an insurance payout on a car provided through a salary sacrifice scheme.

The key relevance is that FOS explicitly accepted jurisdiction despite the car being obtained under salary sacrifice. They treated the complainant, Miss R, as an eligible consumer because she was the one making the payments via salary sacrifice and the one suffering the detriment. 

I do not read that in the same way as you.
The employee (Miss R) was liable for the loss under the SS agreement and had insurance in place to underwrite that loss.
The compliant was all about the valuation of the loss assessed by the insurer.
The fact the car was SS was incidental.
Miss R was a consumer in regard to the car insurance.  That tells us nothing about the status of Miss R in regard to the SS car.

1.i understand your point, but here’s where I think the difference really matters.

A traditional company car is 100% at the employer’s discretion, the employer chooses to provide a vehicle and carries the cost. In that case, yes, it’s clearly a “perk of the job.”

Salary sacrifice is different in substance. The employer isn’t gifting a perk, they’re acting as a conduit. I am giving up part of my earned salary to fund a car for my personal use. I bear the cost directly, I take the risk, and I suffer the detriment when things go wrong.

That’s why it shouldn’t be lumped in as “just another company car.” Structurally, it mirrors a private lease but routed through payroll. To say otherwise risks leaving thousands of employees exposed in schemes that are being aggressively marketed as a tax efficient alternative to personal leasing.

2.I do accept the agreement on paper is B2B between Arval and my employer, that much is clear. But the point I’m making is about substance, not just form. Exactly how the FOS look at this.

If Arval can simply rely on the label of “B2B” to deny FCA DISP obligations, despite the fact that the end user (me) is a private individual funding and using the car for personal purposes, then it effectively creates a loophole. That loophole allows a regulated firm to market products that functionally mirror personal leases while avoiding consumer protections by structuring them through employers.

That’s not just an academic point, it’s a regulatory risk. Salary sacrifice is being pushed hard as a tax efficient alternative to private leasing. If firms can shield themselves behind B2B contracts, consumers are left wide open.

So yeh, the paperwork is B2B. But if the FCA/FOS don’t look at the reality of who pays, who uses, and who suffers the detriment, then firms are able to “badge things B2B” and step outside protections, which undermines the entire purpose of regulation.

2.That’s exactly the problem though, my employer isn’t a car trader, they’re just the middleman taking deductions from my pay. Arval is the regulated leasing firm, supplying and managing the car, not my employer. It makes no sense that I’d supposedly have more rights against my employer (who has nothing to do with the car business) than against Arval who is the FCA regulated provider.

The BiK point is about tax treatment only, HMRC rules don’t decide whether consumer law applies. Consumer law looks at who pays, who uses, and who suffers the detriment. That’s me, not my employer.

And this isn’t just theory. The case we mentioned (DRN-4944001), FOS treated the employee as the consumer.

 3.I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think the salary sacrifice element was“incidental.”

Yes, the complaint in DRN-4944001 was about insurance valuation, but the only reason FOS could even look at it was because they treated Miss R (the employee) as the eligible complainant in the context of a salary sacrifice vehicle. The insurer wasn’t contracted directly with her employer, it was tied to the SS arrangement.

If FOS thought salary sacrifice automatically broke consumer eligibility, they’d have rejected it outright on jurisdiction. They didn’t. They accepted it, investigated, and ruled. That’s the key point, it proves FOS is willing to look at complaints where the detriment flows through a salary sacrifice car, even if the complaint is tied to an add on service like insurance, through SS.

That shows the door is already open. My case is simply asking them to apply the same logic directly to the vehicle itself.

A_Geordie

Sullypants said:

Further to my point on privity of contract, here’s how I see it in simple terms:

• I pay for the car. The money comes straight out of my wages each month through salary sacrifice.
• I use the car. It’s for my personal and family use, not my employer’s.
• I suffer the problems. When it breaks down, I’m the one stranded, not my employer.

That makes me the consumer in practice.

That's not how privity of contract works. Only those party to a contract can sue or be sued or the contract identifies you as a beneficiary enabling you to enforce the contract against that party.I still think you're barking up the wrong tree with Arval. Even the FOS website states that they can only help customers of a financial businesses who is providing a service to those customers. 

You are not a customer of Arval, it is your employer and to the extent Arval are involved, they are merely acting on behalf of your employer arranging the facilitation of the car to you - I've negotiated a number of these contracts, be it Tusker, Lex Autolease, Zenith etc. and they all pretty much say the same thing. They handle the ordering/delivery/contracting process on behalf of the employer via their portal.   

I assume the FOS will come to their senses eventually when they ask you to provide your contract documentation that shows you and Arval have a contract for the hire of the car, and when you show them the contract with your employer, only then they will tell you that they cannot do anything. I appreciate you taking the effort to explain your reasons, but this outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion. 

Either way, good luck and let us know what happens either way. 

Grumpy_chap

Sullypants said:

The Ombudsman dealt with complaint DRN-4944001. 

Yes, the issue in that case was about insurance, but the principle is the same, the insurance was a service tied into the salary sacrifice package between the employer and the lease company, not directly between the individual and the lease or insurance provider. Yet FOS still accepted the complaint and treated the employee as the consumer, because she was the one paying (via her wages) and suffering the detriment.

Sullypants said:

The case we mentioned (DRN-4944001), FOS treated the employee as the consumer.

 3.I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think the salary sacrifice element was“incidental.”

Yes, the complaint in DRN-4944001 was about insurance valuation, but the only reason FOS could even look at it was because they treated Miss R (the employee) as the eligible complainant in the context of a salary sacrifice vehicle. The insurer wasn’t contracted directly with her employer, it was tied to the SS arrangement.

If FOS thought salary sacrifice automatically broke consumer eligibility, they’d have rejected it outright on jurisdiction. They didn’t. They accepted it, investigated, and ruled. That’s the key point, it proves FOS is willing to look at complaints where the detriment flows through a salary sacrifice car, even if the complaint is tied to an add on service like insurance, through SS.

You have made some assumptions and stated as fact matters that are not expressly stated in the FoS decision relating to Miss R and the insurance.

I do not read the report as being so certain.

It is common (possibly the majority) that a SS company car would be a full package including the vehicle insurance via a fleet policy.  In such cases, I would normally expect that the employee following an incident giving rise to a motor claim would report to the fleet manager and then not be closely involved.

There are also some cases where an individual with a company car has to obtain a personal car insurance policy in their own name but with the car owner declared as the company (or lease firm as appropriate and correct).   I have had this when I had a company car previously.  In this case, the individual would be dealing directly with the insurer in the event of a claim arising.

I think it is highly probable that the later scenario is the case in the FOS case mentioned in which case the individual would be a consumer in the case of the motor insurance and whether the car was privately owned by the individual or a company car under SS scheme would be incidental.
The markers I have taken from the decision report ( https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4944001.pdf ) to suggest to me that the insurance was an individual policy include:

Miss R complains Covea Insurance plc has unfairly settled a claim she’s made on her motor insurance policy and is unhappy with the time this took and the impact it had on her.  
 - She made the claim
 - her motor insurance policy
 - impact on her

Miss R says Covea assured her the settlement of the claim would clear the outstanding lease
 - Direct communications between the insurer and the individual

Covea had undervalued the car and it should reimburse Miss R for the shortfall
 - Direct obligation from the insurer to the individual

Miss R has a market value policy
 - Indicates a personal motor policy, as if it were a fleet policy, Miss R would not have a policy

Covea also deducted VAT from the settlement on the basis it said X would have claimed this back at the point of purchase. Covea hasn’t highlighted anything in the policy terms which says it will adopt this approach. And in this case, that approach has caused Miss R to be out of pocket through no fault of her own.
 - All concerned with the individual who is not VAT-registered.
 - Fleet motor policies often do allow for VAT to be deducted from claim value on the basis that the VAT-registered customer is able to reclaim the VAT.  There is an example of this on the FOS case studies ( https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions-case-studies/case-studies/settlement-offered-without-vat-van-written-off-accident )

I’m not satisfied it would be fair or reasonable for her to experience a shortfall because Covea is concerned about what arrangements X may have regarding claiming back VAT. As our Investigator already pointed out, the purpose of the policy is to indemnify Miss R, not X. This concern is simply nothing to do with Miss R and any arrangement X may have is completely outside her control.
 - All indicative of a personal policy
 - A fleet policy would have the purpose to indemnify the employer against losses and the indemnity extended to the individual would only be as an authorised driver
 - The fact that the arrangements the employer / lease company may have with regard to reclaiming VAT is nothing to do with the individual - indicates it is merely incidental that this is a company car and not personal car.

I don’t think Covea’s approach to settling the claim was fair and reasonable and it left Miss R with a substantial shortfall to pay from her own funds.
 - the individual, not the employer / lease company, was left in a detrimental position because of the poor claim handling by the insurer

Miss R found Covea’s handling of the claim distressing. She found she owed a considerable sum of money on the lease even after she says Covea reassured her this wouldn’t be the case
 - All about the individual, no reference to the employer.  If it was a fleet policy, the individual would not usually be involved in the handling of the claim.  Once the report was submitted to the employer's fleet manager, that team would then deal with everything.

The settlement of the claim took longer than I would expect and I can see Miss R had to chase for progress.
 - Again, the individual being involved in the detail of the claim, not the employer's fleet department.


I have read and re-read the FOS decision as published in the case of Miss R, and tried to see if I could interpret the report to give markers of there being a fleet insurance policy included as part of the SS car scheme.  I cannot see the same indicators, so I do think that is is very probably an individual motor policy and the FOS will have taken the case because the individual is a consumer in relation to the motor policy, not because the SS scheme falls under consumer rules.


I fear the OP is blinkered by what they believe should be the case with regard to consumer rules for SS scheme cars and, therefore, not considering any comments to the contrary in a neutral assessment.

The OP has to consider their current situation in the actual existing legal framework and rules that are in place.  These are:

• OP had a contract of employment which paid a salary.
• That contract of employment ended and no longer continues, nor is at available to readily revert to. 
• OP has a new contract of employment which pays a salary plus company car.
• OP pays BiK on the company car.
• OP has no privity of contract with the lease / finance company.
• OP does not pay for a car lease as a consumer.  Indicators of non-consumer include no privity of contract, no affordability checks, BiK taxation (a consumer leasing a car would not incur BiK).

Considering the situation in light of actual legal structure, rather than what the OP thinks should be the case, will guide the OP in how they make any representations and also how they approach seeking a resolution.


I actually think the OP does have some valid comments about whether consumer rules should apply and, possibly, beyond the areas the OP has mentioned about right to reject. 
There are additional factors around SS schemes not being subject to affordability checks, for example. 
Also, possibly, around how SS schemes are considered in terms of eligibility for means tested benefits and / or other borrowing the individual may wish to secure. 
These are all bigger picture matters and if change is desirable, would seem to be a matter for politicians.  Changing the rules would not be obvious as consideration would need to cover SS car, car / car allowance car, or simple company car. 
I accept the OP's point in this regard that FCA / FOS might well inform any decisions that politicians might make that lead to a change of the law here.  We cannot discuss this potential change in any great detail without risking the thread becoming political which is not my intention and nor do I believe it to be the OP's intention.

born_again

FOS can't make a judgement on if this is a consumer purchase. Out of their remit. 
They could only rule on if lease co has not followed the FCA regulations.

That I think would be one for the courts to decide.

I would say that this may not be a common case, but also one that does happen from time to time. So there whould be other cases out there.
 Maybe one for Legal Beagles?