DRN-5974858

The complaint Mr M complains that the hire agreement with Lex Autolease Ltd (“Lex”) to acquire a van was mis-sold to him. He also complains about the service he received when he tried to sell the vehicle. What happened The detailed background to this complaint is well known to both parties. So, I’ll only provide a brief overview of some of the key events here. In July 2017 Mr M acquired a van financed through a hire agreement with Lex. Mr M said he put down a deposit of £3,000 and was aware of the balloon payment at the end of the agreement. He said he thought he was purchasing the van. Mr M said when the agreement ended he kept the van for another three years, paying the monthly payment, he kept using it but had become aware the van wasn’t his and needed to be sold. Mr M said he would never have signed up to this had he known. He said he tried to sell the van for much less than it’s worth but Lex had made it far too difficult and potential buyers backed off so this had left him no option but to give the van back to Lex to go to auction and likely sold for a fraction of the value. Mr M said he’s been left out of pocket as he’s had to maintain the van. It needed an engine rebuild, new turbo clutch and other issues in excess of £10,000. He said he’s just replaced the wet cam belt which was £1,200. Mr M says he has a new van now and the old one is off the road but Lex is still charging the full lease even though he owns the value. He raised a complaint. In its final response Lex said it had followed its process regarding the sale of the vehicle. It said: “It is important to note that settling the balloon payment does not transfer ownership of the vehicle to the customer. Until the customer either arranges a sale on Lex’s behalf or requests vehicle collection for auction, the vehicle remains a live asset on our system, and monthly rentals will continue to accrue.” It upheld part of Mr M’s complaint and acknowledged service failing when setting up Mr M’s complaint. It arranged a £100 credit to Mr M’s account as compensation. Mr M wasn’t satisfied and brought his complaint to this service. Our investigator concluded that the agreement hadn’t been mis-sold and that Lex hadn’t acted unfairly. Mr M didn’t agree and asked for a decision from an ombudsman. While the complaint was with our service Lex requested to collect the vehicle to prevent the customer debt from continuing to grow. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I realise this will come as a disappointment to Mr M but having done so I agree with the conclusions reached by the investigator for the reasons I’ve outlined below.

-- 1 of 3 --

In considering what is fair and reasonable I need to have regard to the relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and (where appropriate) what I consider having been good industry practice at the relevant time. Mis-sale Generally speaking, a misrepresentation is when a false statement of fact has been made; and this false statement induces a customer to buy the goods. I have not seen any contemporaneous evidence, such as sales notes or broker communications, showing that incorrect information was provided to Mr M. I've seen a copy of the agreement: • On page one it says "name and address of the hirer" • In the key financial information box it says “one advance rental payable… followed by 59 monthly subsequent rentals" • On page two it says "this is a hire agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974. Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms." • On page three it says: "You will not own the vehicle during or after this agreement. You must not claim you own it, create charges over it, hire or permit others to obtain rights over it, attempt to change the registration number, or do anything else inconsistent with our rights as lessor” I haven't seen a false statement of fact or any evidence the agreement was misrepresented and the terms and conditions clearly state Mr M would not take ownership of the vehicle. Mr M signed the agreement and in doing so he agreed to be bound by its terms. So I'm not persuaded the agreement was mis-sold. Sale of the vehicle Section 13 of the agreement (“Disposal of the Vehicle”) explains that, at the end of the agreement, Mr M could either: • Sell the vehicle as Lex’s agent at open market value, following Lex’s process, or • Return the vehicle to Lex for disposal on his behalf. I have also seen a copy of the end-of-contract options sent to Mr M, which explains this process in detail. I am satisfied Mr M was aware of how the vehicle could be disposed of. Mr M said he arranged for the sale of the van and lex didn't act quickly enough so the buyer lost interest and Mr M lost the sale. I can see from customer contact notes and correspondence that Mr M wanted to sell the car in October 2024. After he was provided an address to send the relevant sale forms to he notified Lex that the selling price was £100. Lex did not allow the sale to proceed, as this was not open market value. I do not consider Lex’s position unreasonable. Mr M then requested to return the van so that Lex could sell it on his behalf. Lex rejected the “end of contract option form” as it was signed only with Mr M’s initials. Mr M told this service it wasn't for Lex to decide whether his signature was good enough. He said he signed the form. I've also seen a copy of the agreement which shows Mr M used a full signature. I don't think it unreasonable that Lex would expect Mr M to use the same full signature at the beginning and end of the agreement.

-- 2 of 3 --

Mr M made a further attempt to sell the van on 4 December he emailed Lex to say he had a potential buyer for the van at a price of £5,000. Mr M sent in the relevant paperwork to Lex. I've seen a copy of a letter dated 17 January 2025 sent by Lex to Mr M concerning the sale. It confirmed it sent the invoice to Mr M on 16 December 2024, a copy of which I've seen and which Lex said was generated on the account on the same day, but it said it had not received the payment. The letter went on to say if it didn't receive payment by 24 January 2025 it would cancel the current sale. Lex said no sale proceeds were received so the sale of the vehicle was ultimately reversed in the system and the agreement was made live again with monthly rental invoices becoming due for payment. Mr M said the process was delayed because he repeatedly told Lex not to send him encrypted emails he couldn't open. I have seen evidence that Lex provided postal addresses for documentation and responded within reasonable timeframes. I understand Mr M was frustrated with the sale process but I can't say he was given wrong information or that he wasn't aware of the steps he needed to take. So I'm not persuaded Lex has done anything wrong and I won't be asking it to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Maxine Sutton Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --