BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited · DRN-5834651

The complaint Mr R complains that a car acquired under a hire purchase agreement with BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited trading as Alphera Financial Services (“Alphera”) wasn’t as described to him. He wants to reject the car. What happened Both parties are familiar with the background of this complaint so I will only summarise what happened briefly here. In October 2024, Mr R entered an agreement to acquire a used car. He used a credit broker (Z) to source and acquire the car and to source a finance provider for him. No deposit was paid, with the total purchase balance provided by Alphera under a hire purchase agreement. The car was just under five years old and had covered approximately 58,500 miles when the agreement started. The agreement was for 60 months, with 59 monthly repayments of £487.46 and an optional final payment of £8,834 if Mr R wanted to keep the car. The cash price of the car was £27,995. Once Mr R had picked the car up, he noticed it didn’t have air suspension or LED matrix lights. He got in touch with the supplying dealership straight away, and they confirmed the car didn’t have those features. Mr R was unhappy with this, as the advert for the car confirmed both were features in this model. Mr R complained to Alphera. He said the car wasn’t as described to him. Alphera didn’t respond in a suitable time, so Mr R brought his complaint to our service. While our investigator was considering things, Alphera issued their final response to Mr R. They didn’t uphold his complaint. They said that the selling website had a disclaimer that explained that the specification listed for the model might not be present on the specific car being sold, and checks should be made with the selling dealer to ensure the car met the required specification. They offered Mr R £200 to reflect the delays in responding to his complaint. Our investigator upheld Mr R’s complaint. She said she didn’t think the disclaimer on the selling site was sufficiently clear to suggest it applied to the car Mr R had been supplied with. She said Mr R should be able to reject the car as it wasn’t as described to him. She asked Alphera to end the agreement with nothing further for Mr R to pay, and to make arrangements to take the car back. She also said Alphera should pay Mr R £200 to reflect the inconvenience he’d been caused. Mr R accepted our investigator’s outcome, but Alphera didn’t. They felt the outcome was disproportionate and the lack of air suspension and LED lights hadn’t prevented Mr R from using the car. They felt the disclaimer put the onus on Mr R to check the specification of the car prior to acquiring it – but they did offer Mr R £500 to reflect the unsatisfactory customer journey he’d been on as the complaint had been going on for some time.

-- 1 of 4 --

Mr R rejected Alphera’s offer, and because Alphera didn’t accept our investigator’s outcome, the complaint was passed to me to decide. Prior to writing this final decision, I’ve been in communication with both parties to explain my initial thoughts on the complaint, and how I’d like to resolve it. In summary, I said: - There is no dispute that the car is missing the features Mr R has complained about. - Z were the acquirer of the car in this case, on Mr R’s behalf, as confirmed by their correspondence with him and the selling dealer. - As Z were acting as agents of Alphera at the time, Alphera were responsible for anything Z said or did pre-sale. - The car wasn’t as described, and it was for Z to undertake the relevant checks explained in the disclaimer, to ensure the car met Mr R’s requirements. - As the car wasn’t as described, and Z had been responsible for sourcing it and acquiring it for Mr R, Alphera were responsible for the remedy. In this case, I said that Mr R could reject the car. - Alphera should end the agreement, arrange to take the car back and pay Mr R £200 compensation. They should also remove any adverse information, in relation to this agreement, from his credit file, if applicable. Mr R responded and accepted my proposal to resolve the complaint. However, he did ask to be reimbursed for an oil change he’d had done since being in possession of the car. Alphera didn’t accept my proposal to settle the complaint. In summary, they said: - Mr R saw the car when he picked it up so had the chance to check the specification for himself. - Z had told them they disputed that they sourced the car for Mr R. They provided him with a range of options, and he chose the one that was subsequently provided to him. - They would pay Mr R £500 in full and final settlement of the complaint. As Alphera didn’t accept my initial proposal, I’ve gone on to write this final decision. 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. When considering what is fair and reasonable, I’m required to take into account: relevant law and regulations, relevant regulatory rules, guidance and standards and codes of practice. I’ve summarised above the response I received from Alphera as I want them to know that I’ve carefully considered all the points they made and the evidence provided. I don’t intend to address the same points again as in my initial communication with them. Instead, I’ve tried to concisely explain why the additional comments I’ve received since I issued my initial thoughts to them haven’t changed my mind. The fact the car was supplied to Mr R under a hire purchase agreement means that the credit provider, Alphera in this case, has responsibility for things that were said or done by Z prior to Mr R’s entry into the agreement. As the hire purchase agreement entered by Mr R is a regulated consumer credit agreement this service is able to consider complaints relating to it.

-- 2 of 4 --

It isn’t in dispute that the car wasn’t as described in the advert for it, and that it was missing the air suspension and LED matrix lighting. All the parties agree that these features are missing from the car. The issue in dispute is who is responsible for acquiring the car and responsible for not undertaking required checks to ensure it met the specification listed. Having considered everything, I’m satisfied Z sourced and acquired the car for Mr R and are therefore responsible for the car not being as described. They were working as agents of Alphera during this process, so Alphera are also responsible for Z’s actions whilst sourcing the car in this case. Z contacted Mr R in October 2024 and explained they would take care of everything for him. Their email said: 'I will be your Car Buying Expert throughout this experience, working to find a vehicle and finance deal that works for your budget. I will liaise with the dealer and the lender for you and run all of the relevant checks to make sure you have a stress-free journey.' Z also sourced the car and sent the advert to Mr R to consider. The advert clearly listed the features that subsequently weren’t present on the car. I appreciate the advert did contain a disclaimer from the selling website that said that the specification listed might not be available on the specific car being advertised, and it was for the buyer to check the specification with the selling dealer. But I think it was reasonable for Mr R to have expected Z to have carried out those checks, considering they had made it clear in their email that they would be taking care of the process for him, including liaising with the dealer, and undertaking all of the relevant checks. Mr R had made it clear to Z prior to them acquiring the car that air suspension was something he was expecting the car to have, so I’m satisfied it’s reasonable that Mr R would then have expected Z to conduct the checks and take the necessary steps to ensure the car they were acquiring on his behalf met his requirements. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) explains that goods should be as described. And one of the remedies is that the goods can be rejected if they aren’t as described. In Mr R’s case there is no doubt that the car isn’t as described in the advert. Everyone is in agreement with that. Mr R would like to reject the car, and I’m satisfied that’s the fairest thing to do in the circumstances. Alphera should end the agreement and make arrangements with Mr R to take the car back. The CRA explains that a deduction can be made from any refund to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods since they were delivered. It doesn’t set out how to calculate fair usage and there’s no exact formula for me to use. There isn’t an industry standard mileage figure. My role is to decide cases quickly and informally – and I have to bear in mind Mr R has continued to use the car while he’s been in possession of it. So, in this case I think it’s fair for Alphera to retain all the monthly payments Mr R has made towards the agreement to reflect the use he’s had of the car. Mr R has asked to be reimbursed for an oil change he’s had completed in the car since being supplied with it. As he’s continued to have use of it and is expected to maintain it in line with the manufacturer's recommendations whilst it in his possession, I don’t think it’s fair to ask Alphera to reimburse that cost. It’s part of maintaining the car and is Mr R’s responsibility whilst it’s in his possession. Mr R has explained the upset he’s been caused by being supplied with a car that wasn’t as described to him. This has been compounded by the length of time it took Alphera to respond to his concerns and provide him with an answer. No amount of money can change what’s happened here, but I’m satisfied Alphera’s offer to pay Mr R £200 compensation is reasonable in the circumstances. I’d like to remind Mr R that he’s able to reject this decision if he believes he can achieve a

-- 3 of 4 --

better outcome by alternative means, such as through the courts. My final decision For the reasons above, I uphold this complaint. BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited trading as Alphera Financial Services must: • End the finance agreement ensuring Mr R is not liable for monthly repayments after the point of collection (they should refund Mr R any overpayment for these if applicable). • Take the car back (if that has not been done already) without charging Mr R for collection. • Pay Mr R £200 compensation to reflect the upset caused to him by being supplied with a car that wasn’t as described. • Remove any adverse information, in relation to this agreement, from Mr R’s credit file (if applicable). Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Kevin Parmenter Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --