LSH Auto UK Limited · DRN-6076773

The complaint Mr F complains that LSH Auto UK Limited mis-sold a hire purchase agreement. What happened In January 2024, Mr F was supplied with a car through a hire purchase agreement with a lender arranged by LSH. The cash price of the car was £30,394 and he paid a deposit of £500. The agreement was for £29,894 to be repaid over 48 monthly payments of £522.19 followed by an optional final payment of £16,500. The agreement included an annual usage allowance of 17,000 miles. Shortly after the car was supplied, Mr F contacted LSH to ask where to locate the documents he would need to register the car as a private hire vehicle. In June 2024 Mr F got back in touch with LSH and asked if the monthly cost of the agreement could be reduced if he changed the mileage allowance and didn’t use the car for private hire purposes. LSH told Mr F the agreement didn’t allow him to use the car as a private hire vehicle, and said it wasn’t aware that he intended to do this when it arranged the agreement for him. Mr F made a complaint to both LSH and the lender. He said he told LSH he intended to use the car for private hire before entering the agreement. He said he wasn’t given the opportunity to fully review all of the documents before signing, and as far as he was aware his use of the car as a private hire vehicle had already been agreed. He also said he specifically mentioned his intention to use the car for private hire in an email to LSH a few days after it was supplied – and he wasn’t told at that point that it couldn’t be used for that purpose. Neither LSH nor the lender agreed they’d made an error. Mr F’s complaint to the lender was dealt with separately by this service, and an Ombudsman found it wasn’t one we have the power to consider under our rules. His complaint to LSH was also referred to this service and considered by one of our Investigators. They didn’t think there was evidence to suggest Mr F told LSH he intended to use the car for private hire. Mr F didn’t agree with our Investigator’s conclusions. He said his discussions about private hire use took place over the phone – but LSH had failed to provide the relevant call recordings. He said his emails with LSH made clear that it was aware of his intentions from the start – and that if it had told him he couldn’t use the car for private hire he would’ve ended the agreement within the cooling off period. He said LSH’s failings had caused him significant detriment, as he was unable to use the car for work. This significantly impacted his income and caused him a great deal of stress. Our Investigator wasn’t persuaded to change their opinion. So, Mr F asked for the complaint to be referred to an Ombudsman for a final decision – and it’s been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 4 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I recognise I’ve provided a relatively brief summary of Mr F’s complaint. I’d like to assure both parties that I’ve read and considered all the information they provided. If I haven’t specifically commented on something that doesn’t mean I didn’t see it – only that I didn’t find it necessary to comment on in order to reach a fair outcome. This is in keeping with the informal nature of my role, and isn’t intended as a discourtesy to either party. I’d like to thank Mr F for sharing details about how he’s been impacted by this situation. It’s clear that not being able to use the car for private hire has caused him significant financial difficulty and stress. But, being impartial, I need to think critically about whether LSH have done anything wrong or otherwise treated Mr F unfairly. If I find it hasn’t, then I can’t reasonably require it to take any further action. In considering this complaint I’ve had regard to the relevant law and regulations; any regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice, and (if appropriate) what I consider was good industry practice at the time. Mr F was supplied with a car under a hire purchase agreement. Credit broking, including the arrangement of agreements such as this one, is a regulated activity in and of itself, which means I can consider a complaint about it. It seems reasonably clear the agreement arranged by LSH didn’t allow Mr F to use the car for private hire. The terms of the agreement say the car cannot be used for this purpose unless agreed by the lender. Mr F says he told LSH about his intention to use the car for private hire, so reasonably believed it had been agreed with the lender. LSH says it was never made aware of Mr F’s intentions. I’ve considered this. Mr F says his intention to use the car for private hire was discussed over the phone. LSH hasn’t been able to provide recordings of its calls with Mr F – and says these are only retained for a set period which had elapsed by the time the complaint was raised. Given that the calls took place more than two years ago – and nearly six months before Mr F first raised his concerns – I don’t draw negative inferences from this. But I have seen a copy of LSH’ contact notes as well as the emails between LSH, Mr F and the lender. Where information and evidence is limited – as it is in this case – I need to consider what’s more likely on the balance of probabilities. I’ve looked at the contact notes provided by LSH. From these, it seems Mr F initially called LSH to enquire about the car on 15 January 2024. This was followed up the next day when the finance options were discussed. The agent recorded Mr F’s details at the time, including his occupation. I’ve seen a copy of the application details sent to the lender, which state Mr F worked full-time in a role unrelated to private hire. Neither the contact notes or the application suggest Mr F’s intention to use the car for private hire was discussed. I note Mr F has queried the reliability of these notes – and has suggested LSH may have deliberately avoided mentioning private hire use when recording them. But the notes are a contemporaneous record of what was discussed at the time. A car being used for private hire will have several implications on any finance arrangement – so I think it’s likely that if such a significant factor was discussed during these calls it would have been mentioned in these notes. I see no reason to assume the agent would deliberately omit these details – as there was no suggestion at that time that Mr F’s use of the car would be disputed. So, I find these notes reasonable to rely on, and have no reason to believe they aren’t an accurate reflection of what was discussed. I’ve seen the emails exchanged between Mr F and LSH. The first mention of private hire was a few days after the agreement was entered into. Mr F wrote to the sales agent to enquire about the documents he needed to register the car for private hire. He said:

-- 2 of 4 --

“I am getting very frustrated and disappointed about these missing documents. I clearly explained to you that I need to register this vehicle for [private hire].” The agent responded the following day saying: “In regard to the [private hire] I’m sorry I was not aware of this over the phone when you called me the other day I’m not sure if there has been some confusion along the way.” Mr F says this demonstrates that there had been a previous discussion about private hire, as he was specifically getting in touch to chase up documents he needed for this. But the agent’s response suggests the opposite – as they specifically say they weren’t previously aware of this. I don’t think these emails – on their own - demonstrate that a discussion about private hire had taken place before the agreement was entered into. I’ve also considered Mr F’s point that he requested an unusually high mileage allowance. I agree a mileage allowance of 17,000 suggests Mr F intended more than average use of the car. But I don’t think it shows a conversation about private hire took place or that LSH ought to have known this was Mr F’s intention. A customer might want a high mileage allowance for various reasons – such as a long daily commute or frequent long journeys. I understand Mr F strongly disagrees. But I also need to consider that memories can fade with time, and that the discussions took place nearly six months before Mr F had a reason to question the matter. That’s not to say I doubt what Mr F recalls – but ultimately, I need to decide what’s more likely based on the evidence available to me. Taking everything into consideration, I don’t think I’ve seen enough to persuade me that Mr F made his intention to use the car for private hire clear to LSH before entering the agreement. As such, I don’t find that LSH made an error by not arranging an agreement suitable for this use. I’ve also considered whether the agreement was misrepresented to Mr F. For a misrepresentation to have taken place there needs to have been a false statement of fact which induced Mr F to enter the agreement. But for the same reasons I’ve outlined above, I haven’t seen enough to persuade me Mr F was given incorrect information about private hire use at any point before the agreement was entered into. As I’m not persuaded there was a false statement of fact, I don’t find the agreement was misrepresented. Finally, Mr F says LSH ought to have told him the car couldn’t be used for private hire following the email exchange referenced above. He says if it had done so he could have returned the car and ended the agreement within the cooling off period. But even if I were to agree with this, I don’t think it would result in a different outcome. I say this because the car – and the agreement – had already been sold by the time Mr F first mentioned private hire in writing. Cancelling the agreement within the cooling off period would only result in the loan itself being cancelled – not the sale of the car. This means Mr F would have been required to pay the lender the full amount borrowed. So, while I’ve considered Mr F’s comments on this point they don’t change my overall conclusions here. I understand this will come as a significant disappointment to Mr F, and the situation has left him in a difficult position as he relied on using the car for private hire for his income. He has my sincere sympathy for this. But, for the reasons I’ve explained I don’t find that LSH mis- sold the agreement to him. It follows that I don’t think it’s responsible for the losses Mr F says he’s incurred, and I don’t require it to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr F’s complaint.

-- 3 of 4 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Stephen Billings Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --