DRN-6321852

The complaint Mrs S complains about charges LEASYS UK LTD (Leasys) have asked her to pay for replacement tyres on a car she is financing through an agreement with them. What happened I issued a provisional decision on this complaint earlier this month. An extract from that provisional decision is set out below. Mrs S entered into a Personal Contract Hire agreement with Leasys in September 2022. The agreement included a maintenance package covering certain servicing and repair costs. In September 2025 the car was booked in with a main dealership for an MOT and associated works in line with the agreement. During the appointment Mrs S says she was contacted and told that the tyre works had been authorised by Leasys. She says she understood this to mean the works were approved and covered under the maintenance package, and she was not told she would be personally liable for the cost, or given the option to decline the work and source a cheaper repair. The tyres were replaced and Leasys subsequently sought to recover £352.52 from Mrs S by direct debit. Mrs S said she would not have agreed to the work being carried out at a main dealer had she known she would be responsible for the cost. Leasys said the damage to the tyres was not fair wear and tear and so fell outside the maintenance package. It said the terms and conditions of the agreement allowed it to recharge the cost of repairs in those circumstances. When Mrs S referred her complaint to this service our investigator did not uphold the complaint. She thought the damage was not fair wear and tear and that the business was entitled to recover the cost in line with the agreement. Mrs S disagreed. She said she was not given clear information about the cost or an opportunity to make an informed decision before the work was carried out. Mrs S asked for a decision by an ombudsman. What I’ve provisionally 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 don’t currently agree with our investigator’s opinion of this complaint and I’m inclined to uphold it. I’ll explain why. Where the information I’ve got is incomplete, unclear, or contradictory, as some of it is here, I have to base my decision on the balance of probabilities. I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach

-- 1 of 3 --

what I think is the right outcome. I am satisfied that the damage to the tyres was more than fair wear and tear and that under the terms of the agreement the business was entitled, in principle, to recharge Mrs S for such damage. However, I do not consider that this resolves the complaint. The key issue is whether Mrs S was given clear and timely information that the work was not covered by the maintenance package, and that she would be responsible for the cost, before the work was carried out. Mrs S has consistently said that she was told the work had been authorised and that she was not informed she would be charged. I have not seen any contemporaneous evidence from Leasys or the dealership to show that Mrs S was clearly told, before the work was undertaken, that the cost would fall to her, or that she had the option to decline the work. In those circumstances, I consider it more likely than not that Mrs S did not give informed consent to cover the full cost of the work at the point it was carried out. This meant she was deprived of the opportunity to consider alternative, potentially lower cost, repair options. Where a business arranges or authorises work that will result in a charge to a consumer, it should ensure the consumer is made aware of the cost and has the opportunity to make an informed decision. I do not consider that happened here, and so I find that the business acted unfairly in the way the charge was applied. That said, I’ve also considered that the underlying damage to the tyres was Mrs S's responsibility and that some costs would have been incurred in any event to remedy this. So, I do not consider it fair for the business to bear the full cost of the repairs. I think it’s fair for Leasys to reduce the charge to reflect what Mrs S would likely have paid had she been given a reasonable opportunity to obtain a repair elsewhere. In the absence of precise evidence of alternative quotes, I consider it reasonable to reduce the charge by 50%. So Leasys should reduce the amount payable by Mrs S to £176.26 and refund any amount paid above this figure. If no payment has yet been made, they should amend the balance to reflect this reduced amount. I think these issues would have caused Mrs S some inconvenience and frustration. So, the business should also pay Mrs S £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. My provisional decision For the reasons I’ve given above, I’m expecting to uphold this complaint in part and to tell LEASYS UK LTD to: • Reduce the amount payable by Mrs S to £176.26 while refunding anything paid above this figure. • Pay Mrs S £50 to compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused. The parties’ responses to my provisional decision Leasys accepted my provisional decision but asked if the £50 compensation could be debited from the balance due on the account. Mrs S didn’t respond to my provisional decision.

-- 2 of 3 --

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. The £50 award I directed was intended as compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by these errors, rather than as an adjustment to the underlying liability. It serves a different purpose to the reduction in the bill which is designed to correct the financial position. While I understand Leasys preference to offset the £50 against the outstanding balance for administrative convenience, I don’t think that’s appropriate in the circumstances. Offsetting the compensation risks blurring the distinction between putting the account right and recognising the impact the error had on Mrs S. In my view compensation for distress and inconvenience should ordinarily be paid directly to the consumer so that it is clearly identifiable as such. That provides transparency and ensures the consumer receives the benefit of that award in a meaningful way. It’s for those reasons that I’m satisfied that the fair and reasonable outcome is for Leasys to reduce the balance as directed, and to pay £50 to Mrs S separately rather than offsetting that sum against the amount owed. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above, I uphold this complaint in part and tell LEASYS UK LTD to: • Reduce the amount payable by Mrs S to £176.26 while refunding anything paid above this figure. • Pay Mrs S £50 to compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs S to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Phillip McMahon Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --