Vehicle finance dispute – concerns over FOS process and evidence handling

eskbanker

MyRealNameToo said:

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.

Agreed - my point was really that if the complaint was being rejected (either by finance company or FOS) because of the transaction being considered B2B then OP would have highlighted this prominently, whereas it seems evident that both parties were considering the case on its merits, so there's little value in posters asserting that it was a B2B arrangement.

Ergates

Carbuyersfight said:

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?

Without specific details it's impossible to say what the FOS did/didn't take into account but, in general, they'll take 3rd party reports into account if/when they support the case the consumer is making.

So, using case in the link I posted as an example (as we don't have your case to hand) - the FOS *did* take the DEKRA inspection into account - and accepted that there was *a* fault present when the vehicle was sold, and upheld the consumers claim for the cost of repairs *specifically* relating to those issues.  

BUT in the months following the report, the consumer had driving and additional 6000 miles and had repairs done to the vehicle and didn't provide any details of what those repairs were or who made them.  Therefore the FOS decided that they could not conclude that the report proved that the engine replacement was a result of the fault identified in the report (as it could have been a result of the repairs).   

So, you can see in this case (not yours) that the FOS did accept the 3rd party inspection report - but still didn't uphold the complaint due to the subsequent actions of the consumer.

PHK

Can I point out that the FOS will make a decision if the finance company acted fairly and reasonably in line with terms and conditions and law. 

They aren't there to decide if the vehicle was faulty, but rather if the finance company acted reasonably based on the evidence they had. 

To the OP, if this reached an ombudsman's decision then you'll be aware that the decision only becomes binding of you formally accept it. The Independent Assessor will only be involved if there is a complaint about the actions or behaviour of an ombudsman and won't remake their decision. 

If you didn't accept the ombudsman's decision then you are free to take legal case about bringing your case to court.