Vehicle finance dispute – concerns over FOS process and evidence handling

Carbuyersfight

Hi all, I’m looking for informed views on a long-running vehicle finance dispute and, in particular, concerns around how the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) handled evidence and process.

Background

• I purchased a used van on finance for business use

• No service history was provided at point of sale despite requests

• The vehicle was collected in poor conditions with no proper handover or inspection

Faults and evidence

Shortly after purchase, the van showed serious faults and became unusable for its intended purpose.

An independent inspection was carried out by DEKRA, which supported my position that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality / fit for purpose at sale.

Finance company position

Throughout the dispute:

• The finance company failed to supply substantive evidence supporting their position

• Reports relied upon were not disclosed to me at the time

• Core questions raised by me were not answered

FOS process followed

The case went through the full FOS route:

1. Initial FOS investigation
2. Review by a senior adjudicator
3. Formal appeal
4. Complaint to the Independent Assessor (IA)

Despite this, the outcome remained in favour of the finance company.

Key concern

My main issue is not simply losing the case, but how evidence was handled:

• The finance company did not provide supporting evidence to counter the DEKRA report

• The DEKRA report was not meaningfully addressed or rebutted

• Decisions appeared to rely on information that was not shared with me

• Multiple stages upheld earlier conclusions without engaging with unanswered points

Impact

Because the van could not be used, my business suffered significant financial harm, including loss of income and subsequent debt. While I understand FOS does not assess consequential loss in detail, this context is relevant to why the issue matters.

What I’m asking

I’d appreciate views on the following:

• Is it normal for FOS to uphold a finance company position where the consumer has independent expert evidence and the firm provides little or none?

• How does FOS typically weigh third-party inspection reports such as DEKRA?

• Are there recognised routes to challenge FOS decisions once the IA stage has concluded, particularly on procedural grounds?

• Has anyone had success pursuing alternative remedies after exhausting the FOS process?

Thanks in advance — I’m mainly trying to understand whether what I experienced is typical, or whether there are recognised next steps when the process itself appears flawed.

Ergates

Is this your case?  Decision Reference DRN-5292396

Grumpy_chap

Carbuyersfight said:

Hi all, I’m looking for informed views on a long-running vehicle finance dispute and, in particular, concerns around how the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) handled evidence and process.

Background

• I purchased a used van on finance for business use

• No service history was provided at point of sale despite requests

• The vehicle was collected in poor conditions with no proper handover or inspection

Faults and evidence

Shortly after purchase, the van showed serious faults and became unusable for its intended purpose.

An independent inspection was carried out by DEKRA, which supported my position that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality / fit for purpose at sale.

Finance company position

Throughout the dispute:

• The finance company failed to supply substantive evidence supporting their position

• Reports relied upon were not disclosed to me at the time

• Core questions raised by me were not answered

FOS process followed

The case went through the full FOS route:

1. Initial FOS investigation
2. Review by a senior adjudicator
3. Formal appeal
4. Complaint to the Independent Assessor (IA)

Despite this, the outcome remained in favour of the finance company.

Key concern

My main issue is not simply losing the case, but how evidence was handled:

• The finance company did not provide supporting evidence to counter the DEKRA report

• The DEKRA report was not meaningfully addressed or rebutted

• Decisions appeared to rely on information that was not shared with me

• Multiple stages upheld earlier conclusions without engaging with unanswered points

Impact

Because the van could not be used, my business suffered significant financial harm, including loss of income and subsequent debt. While I understand FOS does not assess consequential loss in detail, this context is relevant to why the issue matters.

What I’m asking

I’d appreciate views on the following:

• Is it normal for FOS to uphold a finance company position where the consumer has independent expert evidence and the firm provides little or none?

• How does FOS typically weigh third-party inspection reports such as DEKRA?

• Are there recognised routes to challenge FOS decisions once the IA stage has concluded, particularly on procedural grounds?

• Has anyone had success pursuing alternative remedies after exhausting the FOS process?

Thanks in advance — I’m mainly trying to understand whether what I experienced is typical, or whether there are recognised next steps when the process itself appears flawed.

You are not a consumer if the van was purchased for a business.  
What are the terms of the contract between the two businesses involved?
What due diligence did the purchasing business do prior to purchasing this van?  Why didn't that due diligence cover proper handover or inspection?  Why did the purchase conclude if the van was in poor condition?

Carbuyersfight

Thanks for the reply, I should clarify one key point as there seems to be an assumption this was a business-to-business agreement.

The finance agreement itself was a personal, regulated contract, entered into in my personal capacity with a regulated lender.

Although the van was intended for business use, it was not a business finance agreement.

That distinction matters because the dispute was assessed under the lender’s obligations as the legal owner of the vehicle under a regulated agreement, rather than purely B2B sale terms.

In terms of your questions:

• Due diligence was based on what was reasonably available at the time ,the vehicle was advertised as suitable, had a current MOT, and no crash damage or serious defects were disclosed.

• No service history was supplied despite requests.

• The defects identified were latent and serious, confirmed shortly after purchase by an independent inspection, and not matters that would reasonably be identified during a brief handover.

My reason for posting here isn’t to avoid responsibility for a business purchase, but to understand whether it’s normal in a regulated finance dispute for an independent expert report supporting the purchaser to be upheld against little or no counter-evidence from the lender, across multiple review stages.

Happy to clarify further if helpful.

Ergates

Carbuyersfight said:

Thanks for the reply, I should clarify one key point as there seems to be an assumption this was a business-to-business agreement.

The finance agreement itself was a personal, regulated contract, entered into in my personal capacity with a regulated lender.

Although the van was intended for business use, it was not a business finance agreement.

That distinction matters because the dispute was assessed under the lender’s obligations as the legal owner of the vehicle under a regulated agreement, rather than purely B2B sale terms.

In terms of your questions:

• Due diligence was based on what was reasonably available at the time ,the vehicle was advertised as suitable, had a current MOT, and no crash damage or serious defects were disclosed.

• No service history was supplied despite requests.

• The defects identified were latent and serious, confirmed shortly after purchase by an independent inspection, and not matters that would reasonably be identified during a brief handover.

My reason for posting here isn’t to avoid responsibility for a business purchase, but to understand whether it’s normal in a regulated finance dispute for an independent expert report supporting the purchaser to be upheld against little or no counter-evidence from the lender, across multiple review stages.

Happy to clarify further if helpful.

Again - is this your case?  Decision Reference DRN-5292396

Carbuyersfight

Hi Thanks for commenting again ! The case you are posting is not my case , Thanks 

eskbanker

Carbuyersfight said:

The case went through the full FOS route:

1. Initial FOS investigation
2. Review by a senior adjudicator
3. Formal appeal
4. Complaint to the Independent Assessor (IA)

It might be worth reading through this recent thread, which discussed the reluctance of FOS to consider reviewing the final decision of an ombudsman:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6649512/can-crucial-factual-inaccuracies-in-an-ombudsman-039-s-final-verdict-be-corrected

I notice you don't mention any involvement of an actual ombudsman, or a service complaint, but that might just be terminology - if your case had a final decision from an ombudsman then it would be published on the FOS site, so are you able to share the decision reference number (DRN)?

MyRealNameToo

Carbuyersfight said:

FOS process followed

The case went through the full FOS route:

1. Initial FOS investigation
2. Review by a senior adjudicator
3. Formal appeal
4. Complaint to the Independent Assessor (IA)

So you've not yet had the decision from an Ombudsman? If you have then the DRN number would be useful. 

The IA deals with complaints about the ombudsman themselves, rather than someone just not liking the decision. They themselves won't say if the decision was right/wrong but comment on the process taken. 

It is possible for the FS company to pass certain information to the Ombudsman "in confidence", the ombudsman will consider it but will not share it with the complainant. You most commonly see it in cases where a bank account has been closed without notice and the FS firm has given the ombudsman the intelligence that suggests the complainant was money laundering or acting fraudulently etc. It's not generally done on bog standard stuff like engineers reports. 

Can you post a copy of the Adjudicator's decision, obviously not including any details that identify you personally? 

The ombudsman will consider what's presented to them and will often point out that 1) they arent engineers etc and so in the case of conflicting evidence they will consider what is most likely to have happened 2) people often send sprawling and incoherent complaints with masses of evidence, and the ombudsman points out they have considered all of it but will only address what it considers the salient points are... sometimes they may pick the wrong points but thats somewhat the fault of the complainant for sending a 24 letter rather than a half page conscise letter that only included the salient points. 

PTP123

You say that the finance was in your name but what about the vehicle invoice?

It's still a B2B transaction though. Any dealer or finance company can prove this pretty easily if your posts are anything to go by

eskbanker

PTP123 said:

You say that the finance was in your name but what about the vehicle invoice?

It's still a B2B transaction though. Any dealer or finance company can prove this pretty easily if your posts are anything to go by

OP would presumably have mentioned if FOS had rejected the complaint because of categorising it as B2B, and some B2B arrangements will be in their scope anyway, e.g. sole traders or other unincorporated businesses.

MyRealNameToo

eskbanker said:

PTP123 said:

You say that the finance was in your name but what about the vehicle invoice?

It's still a B2B transaction though. Any dealer or finance company can prove this pretty easily if your posts are anything to go by

OP would presumably have mentioned if FOS had rejected the complaint because of categorising it as B2B, and some B2B arrangements will be in their scope anyway, e.g. sole traders or other unincorporated businesses.

Dont think its a question of if its in the scope of the FOS but more if its in the scope of the Consumer Credit Act which is what makes the finance company jointly liable with the merchant. 

The OP hasn't actually said on what grounds the finance company rejected their claim, kind of assuming that its because they disagree on the severity of the defects but maybe its something else.