Lex Autolease Ltd · DRN-6106940

The complaint T complains about the process of selling a vehicle it was supplied by Lex Autolease Ltd (Lex) under a hire agreement. Mr D brings the complaint on T’s behalf. For ease, I’ll refer to Mr D throughout this decision. When I refer to what T, Mr D or Lex have said or done, it should also be taken to include things said or done on their behalf. What happened In September 2021, Mr D entered into a hire agreement with Lex for a vehicle that was supplied to him in October 2021. The hiring period was 60 months, with an initial rental payment of around £3,195.72 followed by 59 monthly rental payments of £355.08. In September 2024, Mr D complained to Lex that when attempting to sell the vehicle, the sale wasn’t completed due to the buyer’s concerns about the security of the payment process. After finding another buyer, Mr D complained about the timescale to provide the relevant documentation, which he considered deliberately delayed things when Lex should be able to provide a manual invoice immediately. Lex didn’t uphold these complaints as it didn’t consider they resulted from service failings. However, Mr D later complained about the delay in receiving confirmation Lex’s interest in the vehicle had been removed from HPI and that he had received emails intended for a third-party in error. Lex upheld these complaints and paid Mr D £75 for the inconvenience caused. In December 2024, Mr D complained T had been charged a £561.60 finance lease disposal fee, which he had disputed in September 2024. He said he was told he would be contacted about the dispute within 15 days, but it was closed down without a response. In its final response, Lex said it made an error when logging the complaint, meaning the dispute wasn’t resolved within its service level agreement. It paid £49 towards T’s account in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by this. However, it said it did attempt to contact Mr D and the email he received about the closure of a dispute related to a different rental invoice. It also said Mr D agreed to the 2.5% disposal fee when signing the lease. Lex sent Mr D a further final response letter in January 2025. In summary, it maintained its position on the complaints addressed within its previous response. In addition, it said it had found no evidence of service failings within its communication, it had correctly informed Mr D of the possible negative credit file impact if the disposal fee wasn’t paid, and it had followed its business processes in relation to the sale of the vehicle. While no service failings were identified, Lex upheld Mr D’s complaint about the poor service he said he had received, including conflicting information, poor communication and being placed on hold. Lex credited T’s account with a further £99, in addition to the previous compensation paid. In January 2025, Mr D complained Lex wouldn’t accept payment of the outstanding balance by credit card – which Lex didn’t uphold. Mr D then complained that he hadn’t received the call recordings he’d requested, which Lex upheld. It said it sent Mr D the calls within its 30-

-- 1 of 7 --

day time limit, but it didn’t appear Mr D had been advised it could take that long, so it apologised for the inconvenience caused. Still unhappy, Mr D referred his complaint to this Service in June 2025. In summary, he said: • The private sale process, including slow documentation processing, poor communication and an unsafe payment method resulted in two sales not going through and him losing £2,500 on the final sale price. It also nearly resulted in a third sale falling through, causing significant stress. • Lex sent him the sales invoice, when it should’ve been sent to the buyer. It had also already been paid, so sending the invoice after already receiving payment could’ve resulted in Lex profiting £18,500 prior to refunding it. • After disputing the disposal fee, he wasn’t contacted within the advised timeframe and the dispute was closed without him being contacted for information. • Lex demanded payment of a disposal fee after confirming it no longer held any financial interest in the vehicle – after which all communication should’ve ceased. • He received multiple calls from Lex demanding payment and threatening to report adverse information to Credit Reference Agencies (CRAs) which put him under great pressure and stress to make a large payment. Our Investigator reviewed matters and didn’t uphold Mr D’s complaint. They were satisfied the disposal fee had been charged fairly and in line with the terms and conditions of the agreement, so it wasn’t unreasonable for Lex to contact him about payment of this. And regarding the sales process, they said Lex is entitled to choose its own processes and isn’t responsible for setting or agreeing the final sale price – so can’t be held liable for any missed profit. They were satisfied the compensation Lex had paid for the shortfalls in service was reasonable, so it didn’t need to do anything more to put things right. Mr D didn’t agree. In summary, he said: • Under regulatory guidance, firms must not pursue or threaten recovery of a debt that’s in dispute or where there are reasonable grounds to believe the customer doesn’t owe it – which applied here once Lex confirmed it had no further financial interest in the vehicle, clearly indicating the agreement had been settled. • The loss he incurred due to buyers withdrawing from the sale was a direct result of Lex’s processes. • Lex never made him aware of how the sales process would work before he entered into the agreement. And had he known it would be handled in such an insecure and impractical way, he would’ve reconsidered entering the agreement at all. He considers this fell short of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) treating customers fairly principle that customers shouldn’t be disadvantaged by undisclosed or unsafe processes. • Given the level of mismanagement and customer impact throughout the agreement, he questioned why Lex should have retained full commission earnings from the contract. He doesn’t consider it fair for Lex to benefit financially from a relationship that caused such avoidable loss and distress to the customer. To resolve the complaint, Mr D believes Lex should refund the disposal fee and appropriately compensate him through the value of the commission Lex earned during the contract. As no agreement has been reached, the matter has been passed to me to decide.

-- 2 of 7 --

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. I think it’s important to firstly explain I’ve read and taken into account all of the information provided by both parties, in reaching my decision. If I’ve not reflected something that’s been said it’s not because I didn’t see it, it’s because I didn’t deem it relevant to the crux of the complaint. I say this because I’m aware I’ve summarised Mr D’s complaint in less detail than he has, and in my own words. I also may not comment on every one of Mr D’s complaint points specifically within my findings. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy to either party, but merely to reflect my informal role in deciding what a reasonable outcome is. Where evidence has been incomplete or contradictory, I’ve reached my view on the balance of probabilities – what I think is most likely to have happened given the available evidence and wider circumstances. I also think it’s important to set out what it is this decision will cover. I’d like to clarify I’ll only be considering the merits of Mr D’s complaints against Lex, that were raised before referring his complaint to this Service. In doing so I’ve only considered the actions and omissions of Lex and its agents – and not those of any other party. Mr D has referred to specific case law, rules and regulations, and guidance within his complaint submissions. The rules the Financial Ombudsman Service are required to follow are set out by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the Dispute Resolution: Complaints (DISP) Handbook. DISP 3.6.1 says: The Ombudsman will determine a complaint by reference to what is, in his opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. And DISP 3.6.4 says: In considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman will take into account: (1) relevant: (a) law and regulations; (b) regulators’ rules, guidance and standards; (c) codes of practice; and (2) (where appropriate) what he considers to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. The effect of these rules mean I’m required to take into account the information, laws and legislations Mr D has mentioned, but I’m not bound by them. This reflects our informal nature as an alternative to the courts. As such, I won’t be commenting on each of these directly. I’m required to decide things on a fair and reasonable basis and therefore my focus will be on whether I’m satisfied Lex has treated Mr D fairly or not. T was supplied with a vehicle under a hire agreement. This is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means we are able to investigate complaints about it. Private sale/payment process Mr D has raised concerns about the way in which the agreement was sold. Specifically, he says the vehicle sales process wasn’t properly explained to him, and had it been he

-- 3 of 7 --

would’ve reconsidered entering into the contract. However, in Mr D’s case, the agreement was sold by an independent broker – not Lex. Under section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a finance provider can be held responsible for antecedent negotiations (meaning what was said or done) by the broker and/or supplier (the dealership) before the consumer enters into a finance agreement. However, this doesn’t apply to all credit agreements, including hire and lease agreements unless the creditor acts as negotiator in respect of antecedent negotiations. In Mr D’s case, I haven’t seen any evidence to be able to say that Lex was acting as negotiator in respect of the antecedent negotiations. I’ve considered common law principles of agency to establish whether a broker acted with authority or apparent authority on behalf of Lex. But I don’t think the broker was acting as Lex’s agent in this particular case. I note the terms and conditions of the agreement say: “5. RESTRICTION OF OUR LIABILITY (b) Any dealer, operator, broker or manufacturer (even if described as an agent) who has been involved in this transaction is not our legal agent, and we are not responsible for anything they have said, done or not done unless we have specifically authorised it in writing or unless the law otherwise makes that person our agent.” I haven’t seen anything that shows Lex authorised the broker to act as its agent. I’m therefore satisfied Lex is not responsible for Mr D’s complaint regarding the sale of the contract, or advice he received before entering into it. What I have seen is the credit agreement itself, which was signed by Mr D on behalf of T. Having reviewed this, I note the first page provides important key information about the agreement. This prominently sets out: “Under a Finance Lease agreement, you take the financial risk on the contract. This means that any profit or loss on ultimate vehicle disposal, at the end of the contract, is borne by you. We will credit or charge you appropriately. Where stated on documents, a Sales Administration Fee may also be invoiced to you separately. To ensure you fully understand the nature of our agreement, the following important points will apply: • Your lease agreement is for a fixed term. Your contract mileage is factored into the quote for the purpose of establishing - at contract end - an Estimated Vehicle Sale value (EVSV). • You will not have the option to buy and own the vehicle at any time during the term or at the end of the agreement. If you do not return the vehicle at the end of the agreement term, you will enter a period of informal extension and will continue to pay the same monthly rentals, until such time as you advise us that you wish the contract to be terminated. During an extension, the vehicle will continue to be depreciated in our books and the EVSV will be reduced by a corresponding amount for the purposes of calculating your profit or loss upon final disposal. • You can terminate the contract at any point prior to the end of the agreement. However, you will be quoted and liable for a Settlement Figure (SF), which will be offset against the net sale proceeds of the vehicle at disposal, to determine any profit/loss due to/payable by you.”

-- 4 of 7 --

This means, unlike some other leasing products, the risk on disposal lies with the customer, not with Lex. As set out under Section 13 of the terms and conditions - “Termination of hiring by you and disposal of the vehicle” - at the end of the contract, Lex estimates a resale value for the vehicle. The customer may then arrange for the vehicle to be sold to a third party, or Lex will sell it for them and all sales proceeds, less fees, are used to settle the resale value. This may result in a surplus which the customer may keep or a deficit which must be paid to Lex. Based on the above, I’m satisfied Mr D was provided with clear and not misleading information about the disposal of the vehicle at the end of the agreement – before he entered into it. Mr D says he incurred loss due to Lex’s internal payment process, which resulted in private sales falling through due to concerns about the security of the payment method. This Service is not the regulator, so it’s not my role to comment on Lex’s internal processes or interfere with them. What I can consider is if Lex made an error, or otherwise treated Mr D unfairly, that resulted in impact such as consequential loss. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t find Lex made an error, failed to follow its own process or treated Mr D unfairly. While it’s unfortunate a potential buyer chose not to proceed due to concerns about the security of the payment link provided, I can’t reasonably hold Lex responsible for this. Lex has also shown it sent an invoice to the third-party, which included the bank details to arrange payment via bank transfer or Chaps. I’m therefore satisfied reasonable alternative and secure payment method options were provided to the prospective buyer, which they could’ve used to pay the funds if they were uncomfortable with the payment link option. As I don’t consider the payment options provided by Lex to be unsecure or unreasonable, I don’t find it responsible for the sale of the vehicle not completing, or the loss Mr D incurred as a result. I also note Mr D has referred to another company who he says chose not to purchase the vehicle due to previous experiences with Lex. However, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on this here. A company’s decision not to do business with another based on previous experience is not relative or reflective of how Lex has acted or treated Mr D in the circumstances of this individual complaint. And I haven’t seen anything to suggest the buyer pulled out of the sale due to an error made by Lex in relation to this agreement. Service Mr D has raised several complaints about various service-related issues, some of which Lex has upheld. I won’t detail each complaint individually here, but to summarise, Lex has accepted it sent Mr D an email intended for the third-party buyer, didn’t respond to his sales administration fee dispute within its own service level agreement and didn’t tell him of the 30 day timeframe it had to provide information under a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR). Lex didn’t find any evidence of the other service failings reported by Mr D, but gave him the benefit of the doubt that it could’ve provided a better service at times based on his testimony. Based on what I’ve seen, I’m not persuaded Lex acted unreasonably or caused avoidable delays to the sale process. While I understand Mr D was keen to expedite the process to ensure the sale went through promptly, I haven’t seen any evidence that Lex failed to action any steps within its own timeframes – which it informed Mr D of in its previous communications regarding the process of selling the vehicle. I don’t consider it reasonable to expect Lex to action each step immediately. Especially when certain things are out of its control, such as the time it takes for a payment to clear and show on the account. It’s not

-- 5 of 7 --

unusual for a business to require some time to process administrative tasks and I don’t consider the timescales set out by Lex to be unreasonable. And having considered the time it took for Lex to process each step, and the overall sales process, I’m satisfied it did so within a reasonable timeframe. Lex has paid a total of £223 in compensation for the overall service failings. And having considered what Mr D has said about his experience when communicating with Lex, the evidence available and overall circumstances of this case, I’m satisfied this fairly reflects the impact caused – and is in line with our award ranges for situations such as this. Sales administration fee As I’ve set out above, the key information provided to Mr D at point of sale informed him a sales administration fee may be payable at the end of the contract, which he would receive a separate invoice for. Page 2 of the lease agreement also states: Sales Administration Fee (see clause 13 of the Terms): equivalent to 2.5% of the sales price of the Vehicle (inc VAT). Clause 13 of the terms and conditions say: (ii) you shall pay us any amount of Sales Administration Fee (calculated in the manner specified on page 2); Additionally, prior to the sale of the vehicle, Lex provided Mr D with information about selling the vehicle as its agent, which said: “A 2.5% charge will be applied of the whole sale proceeds.” Based on the above, I’m satisfied the charge was applied fairly and in line with the terms of the contract. And as I’m satisfied this charge was payable by Mr D, I don’t find it unreasonable that Lex contacted him requesting payment of this. I don’t agree Lex confirming it no longer had a financial interest in the vehicle itself means it wasn’t able to reasonably pursue payment of the sales administration fee owed by Mr D under the terms of the agreement. Mr D agreed to pay the fee when he entered into the contract, and he was aware it hadn’t been settled prior to receiving the notification that Lex had no financial interest in the vehicle. So, in keeping with our fair and reasonable approach, I don’t consider it unreasonable for Lex to pursue payment of the amount owed. Overall, I’m satisfied Lex treated Mr D fairly throughout the end of contract sales process and has fairly compensated it for the administrative and service failings that occurred – so I don’t require Lex to do anything further. My final decision For the reasons explained, my final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask T to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Nicola Bastin Ombudsman

-- 6 of 7 --

-- 7 of 7 --