Volvo Car Financial Services UK Limited · DRN-6174032

The complaint Mr A complains that Volvo Car Financial Services UK Limited (VCFS) have applied the incorrect end date to motor finance agreement he has with them. What happened In November 2022, Mr A entered a conditional sale agreement with VCFS to acquire a vehicle. The agreement was over a period of 37 months. Mr A complains that VCFS applied an incorrect end date to his finance agreement. He said the vehicle was delivered in December 2022 and that, as the term was for 36 months, he expected it to end in December 2025. In December 2025, VCFS issued their final response to Mr A’s complaint, which they did not uphold. They said the agreement terms showed the duration was 37 months and that Mr A had signed to accept this. VCFS confirmed the end date as May 2026. Unhappy with VCFS’s outcome, Mr A brought his complaint to this service, where it was passed to one of our investigators. In its file submission, VCFS said the agreement was incepted on 3 April 2023 and was due to end 37 months later in May 2026. However, Mr A provided a copy of the contract showing he signed it on 22 November 2022. He also provided a statement from the manufacturer confirming that delivery of the vehicle was arranged for December 2022. In February 2026, the investigator issued their view and recommended that Mr A’s complaint should be upheld. In summary, the investigator concluded that as Mr A had signed the agreement in November 2022 and received the vehicle in December 2022, the agreement should have ended in December 2025. The investigator recommended that VCFS end the agreement, arrange with Mr A to collect the remaining balance, and pay him £75 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Mr A accepted this view. However, VCFS said they were unable to carry out the recommended actions, so the complaint has been passed to an ombudsman for a 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. In considering what is fair and reasonable, I’ve thought about all the evidence and information provided afresh and the relevant law and regulations, regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and (where appropriate) what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time.

-- 1 of 3 --

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 what I think is the right outcome. Mr A entered into a conditional sale agreement with VCFS. He provided a signed copy of the agreement showing it was entered on 25 November 2022. Under the section “Goods and financial information”, the contract states: “Duration of this agreement: 37 months.” It also states: “You must repay the amount of credit and the total charge for credit shown in the costs information section below by 36 consecutive monthly payments of £396.70, starting one month after the date of this agreement, followed by one payment of £23,797.50 payable 37 months after the date of this agreement.” Based on these terms, I’m satisfied that the agreement commenced in November 2022, making the correct end date December 2025—37 months later. In its file submission, VCFS said the agreement was “incepted” in April 2023, and the statement of account shows the first payment was taken in May 2023. However, this does not align with the contractual terms noted above. Although some details remain unclear, it appears likely that delays around the time of delivery—an issue Mr A highlighted in his complaint form—caused confusion. Nevertheless, the agreement itself is reasonably explicit: the final payment is due 37 months after the agreement date, which is November 2022. In responding to the investigator’s view, VCFS didn’t dispute the recommendations. Instead, they said they were unable to end the agreement until Mr A arranged for the car to be collected and made the payments due under it. I recognise there were some payments due at the start of the agreement which Mr A didn’t make because of the delivery delays (from around January 2023 to April 2023). I believe these are the outstanding payments VCFS has referred to. Given the agreement has already passed the date Mr A reasonably expected it to conclude, I think the fairest outcome is for VCFS to honour the contractual terms as closely as possible by arranging collection of the vehicle and bring the agreement to an end. While VCFS say they cannot close the agreement until the balance is settled, I’m satisfied they should do so in this case, as the initial repayment delays were not Mr A’s fault. That said, it’s reasonable that Mr A should repay the outstanding instalments due. However, if he is experiencing some financial difficulty in doing so, he may wish to discuss an affordable repayment plan with VCFS. Finally, I also agree with the investigator’s assessment that Mr A has experienced distress and inconvenience because of this situation. I consider £75 to be fair compensation, and I will be instructing VCFS to pay this amount to him. My final decision Having thought about everything above along with what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances I uphold this complaint and instruct Volvo Car Financial Services UK Limited to: • end the agreement and arrange with Mr A to collect the vehicle from him • arrange with Mr A suitable repayment option (if applicable) to collect any outstanding monthly repayments due

-- 2 of 3 --

• pay Mr A £75 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Benjamin John Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --