Promas Enterprises Limited trading as Lease4Less · DRN-6116884

The complaint Mr H is unhappy that Promas Enterprises Limited trading as Lease4Less (Lease4Less) unfairly levied a £720 fee when he cancelled an order he placed for a car. When I refer to what Mr H and/or Lease4Less have said and/or done, it should also be taken to include things said and/or done on their behalf. What happened In January 2025, Mr H entered into an agreement with Lease4Less to order a car and for them to broker a credit agreement for the car’s acquisition. However, in February 2025 Mr H decided to proceed with a different car so he cancelled his order with Lease4Less. Following this Lease4Less said that he will incur a cancellation fee of £720 (including VAT). In summary, Mr H said the fee they are trying to charge him is excessive and not in line with the costs Lease4Lees incurred for cancelling the transaction in question. He feels that the cancellation charge was not clearly or prominently disclosed in pre-contractual documentation he was provided. Mr H feels that Lease4Less imposed their own 14 day cooling off period and, as they did not provide him with the finance agreement, he was unable to review the terms of it and to exercise his right to cancel without penalty. In addition, Mr H felt Lease4Less are circumventing the protections and rights he has under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 and the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. As such, he raised a complaint with Lease4Lees. On 17 June 2025 Lease4Less responded to Mr H’s complaint. In this correspondence they said Mr H received, signed, and, as such, accepted all of their forms, which included at least five references to the cancellation charges. They said that even when Mr H changed his mind about the car he ordered, they tried to accommodate his change of mind. However, they said, he would not agree to a further credit search, even though the original search had been conducted by a different broker. Lease4Less also said that having committed themselves, and the supplying dealer where the car was ordered, to significant time and costs, Mr H cancelled the order, and the order form he signed on 22 January 2025 makes it clear that the order is for both the car and the finance. The two orders are subject to different cooling off rules. The car order has a 14-day cancellation period, which expired on 6th February 2025. The finance order had a 14-day cooling off period which would end 14 days after signing of the agreement. Therefore, Lease4Less said the finance contract is cancellable without penalty, but the order of the car is subject to a cancellation fee, as clearly described. Lease4Less concluded their response by saying that Mr H was sent everything required for him to make an informed decision. Lease4Less said they complied with any laws regarding cooling off periods, and because Mr H cancelled his order over a month after signing the order, they do not uphold his complaint.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr H remained unhappy with Lease4Less’s response. As such, he brought his complaint to Financial Ombudsman Service (Financial Ombudsman). An investigator thought that as Mr H has already paid Lease4Less £300 deposit inclusive of VAT, Lease4Less should reduce the outstanding balance so that Mr H pays no more than £200 (a total of £500) to reflect the costs and service provided by them. Mr H did not accept the investigators’ outcomes. As a result, the complaint has 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 reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. In considering what is fair and reasonable, I need to take into account the relevant rules, guidance, the law, and, where appropriate, what would be considered to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. Where evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory, I reach my findings on the balance of probabilities – which is to say, what I consider most likely to have happened based on the evidence available and the surrounding circumstances. Mr H has very strong feelings about this complaint, and he provided detailed submissions in support of his view which, I can confirm, I have read and considered them in their entirety. However, I have summarised this complaint very briefly, in less detail than has been provided, and largely in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. If there is something I have not mentioned, I have not ignored it. I have not commented on every individual detail. But I have focused on those that are central to me reaching, what I think is, the right outcome. This reflects the informal nature of our Financial Ombudsman as a free alternative to the courts. First, I considered if Lease4Less clearly disclosed the cancellation fee when Mr H was entering into the agreement with them. I think the fee of £720 was clearly documented in the documents Mr H was provided. The fee is explained in a few spots. One of the documents is fairly long and the cancellation fee is noted late in the document, but in some of the other documents it is more prominent. For example, in the ‘Information Notice’, a much shorter document, it is in a prominent position where just a bit lower Mr H signed. Also, in the ‘Personal Contract Hire Vehicle Order Form’ it is also clearly explained, and Mr H also signed this form. In addition, I think that the documents Mr H was provided with made it clear that the cancellation fee referred to the contract with Lease4Less and the service they provided, rather than to a contract with the finance provider. As such, I have not seen a reason that would allow me to say that, most likely, the cancellation term in question should not apply to Mr H. Finally, the general position is that a party who agrees to a contract is bound by its terms. Next, I thought about if the amount Lease4Less was seeking to charge Mr H for the service they provided was reasonable. The Financial Services (Distance Marketing) Regulations 2004 allow Lease4Less to charge Mr H for any service they actually provided before cancellation, but any charge/fee had to be proportionate when compared to the full value of the contract. When thinking about this, I considered that Mr H already paid Lease4Less £300 non-refundable deposit when he entered into the agreement with them. This £300 is explained as a fee to cover the administration costs as well as other costs associated with providing the agreement, sourcing the car, and ordering it with the supplier.

-- 2 of 3 --

Lease4Less has provided us with a detailed breakdown per unit of how much different parts of their process cost them. They explained that they incurred costs when dealing with this transaction. They said they had costs in relation to arranging the finance and ordering the car, which I do not think is unreasonable as Mr H was dealing with them for a reasonable amount of time, and the car ordering/supply process was well under way. The colours were picked, the car was ordered, and Mr H even ordered a specific number plate for the car. As such, it is not unreasonable that Lease4Less should be able to charge something for their services. However, Lease4Less did not specifically explain, or provide enough detail of, how £1,020 was a fair charge specifically for the services they provided to Mr H. Also, in one of their correspondences with Mr H Lease4Less confirmed that they were willing to reduce the fee to match the commission (£600 inclusive of VAT) that they would get from the finance company once the car was delivered. As such, it seems they were trying to recover some of the expected profit they intended to receive from the finance company which does not seem fair and reasonable. Overall, I have not seen enough evidence to be able to say that most likely it would be fair or reasonable for them to charge Mr H £1,020 for their services rendered, bearing the specific circumstances of this complaint. Generally, it is not for the Financial Ombudsman to tell a business what they should charge for their services, but considering that Lease4Less did not provide the exact costs they incurred for providing Mr H with the services, and considering that I do not think £1,020 charge would be considered fair and reasonable bearing the specific circumstances of this complaint, I thought about what a fair and reasonable amount would be. There is no exact math to determine what a reasonable amount would be, but I have considered how much other similar service charge in similar circumstances. Mr H provided evidence from a broker he went with who charged £500 for a cancelled agreement. Also, I am aware that other similar brokers charge between £300 to £500 (VAT inclusive) plus an initial deposit. On the other hand, Lease4Less referred to another broker whose fees are even higher than theirs. Bearing all the evidence available, I think it would be fair and reasonable for the total charge Mr H has to pay to be reduced to total of £500 (including VAT). Considering he already paid £300 I do not think it would be fair and reasonable for Lease4Less to seek more than a further £200 (including VAT) from Mr H. While I appreciate Mr H’s strength of feeling regarding his complaint, I do not think it is fair or reasonable for me to require Lease4Less to take any further action regarding his complaint, except what I have mentioned above. My final decision For the reasons given above Promas Enterprises Limited, trading as Lease4Less, should not seek more than a further £200 from Mr H. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Mike Kozbial Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --