BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED · DRN-5984133

The complaint Mr S complains that a car supplied under a hire purchase agreement with BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED was misrepresented to him. What happened In or around October 2022, Mr S was supplied with a used car through a hire purchase agreement with BMW. The cash price of the car was £57,474. He made an advance payment of £5,681.14 and the agreement was for £51,792.86 over 49 months; with 48 monthly payments of £911.23 and an optional final payment of £26,480.53. At the time of supply, the car was around three years old, and had travelled around 19,351 miles. In July 2025 Mr S made a complaint, saying the car had been misrepresented to him. He said the dealer advertised the car as having a top speed of 190mph – but the speed was actually limited to 155mph. He said he chose the car on the basis that it had a specific performance package which allowed it to reach 190mph. He asked to end the agreement with no penalty or to be compensated for the car not being as described. BMW didn’t agree the car had been misrepresented. It said the car wasn’t advertised as coming with the performance package Mr S wanted. It also noted that the car was three years old when it was supplied to Mr S – and was now nearly six years old – and the top speed could degrade over time with wear and tear. It paid Mr S £200 to recognise the length of time taken to respond to the complaint. The complaint was referred to this service. It was considered by one of our Investigators, who didn’t uphold it. They weren’t persuaded that the advertised top speed of 190mph amounted to a false statement of fact, or that the car was advertised as being supplied with the performance package Mr S said he wanted. But in any case, they weren’t persuaded it affected Mr S’ decision to buy the car – given the length of time that passed before he queried the matter with BMW. Mr S didn’t accept the Investigator’s conclusions. In summary, he said the dealership’s advert included a clear and specific statement that the car’s top speed was 190mph, which wasn’t true. He said the delay in raising the matter was because he trusted the information provided by the dealership, and he had no way of knowing it was incorrect until recently. He asked for the complaint to be referred to an Ombudsman for a final decision. So, it’s been passed to me to decide. Since the complaint was referred to this service, Mr S has sold the car and settled the agreement in full. 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

If I haven’t commented on any specific point, it’s because I don’t believe it’s affected what I think is the right outcome. Where evidence has been incomplete or contradictory, I’ve reached my decision on the balance of probabilities – what I think is more likely than not to have happened given the available evidence and wider circumstances. 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 S was supplied with a car under a hire purchase agreement. This is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means I can consider a complaint about it. Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) outlines that finance providers such as BMW can be held liable for antecedent negotiations by a credit broker or supplier before an agreement is taken out. In this case, this means I can consider information provided by the dealership to Mr S about the car before he entered the agreement. For me to conclude that the car was misrepresented to Mr S, I’d first need to be satisfied that: 1. A false statement of fact has been made; and 2. That false statement induced Mr S to buy the car. I’ve considered each of these criteria in turn. Was there a false statement of fact? Mr S has provided screenshots of the original advert. BMW has also provided a copy of the dealership’s listing. While the listing makes no mention of the car’s top speed, the advert provided by Mr S lists a top speed of 190mph. BMW says the specifications provided in the advert are a generalised overview of the make and model, usually provided by the manufacturer. Mr S says his key concern was that the car came with a specific performance package. I’ve seen the price and options brochure for this model of car, which states that the package Mr S has referred to increases the car’s top speed to 190mph. Mr S says the mention of a top speed of 190mph was a clear indication that this package was included. The listing includes a comprehensive list of the options fitted to the car, which includes various packages and features as well as a comfort package. The package Mr S has referred to isn’t listed here, and isn’t mentioned in the screenshots of the advert he’s provided. While I understand Mr S’ point that he took the top speed to mean the package was included – I think it would be reasonable to assume that if the car came with the package, it would have been specifically mentioned alongside the other optional extras. Because it isn’t, I don’t think the dealership provided a false statement of fact that the car included the performance package. Based on his comments to this service, it seems Mr S had some knowledge of the packages and options available with this model of car - so I also think it’s fair to say that if this was a key consideration for Mr S, he could have queried it with the dealership if the package he wanted wasn’t listed on the advert. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that he did so. I think there’s more merit to Mr S’ argument that the listed top speed of 190mph wasn’t achievable – as it’s not disputed that the car’s speed was electronically limited to 155mph (though Mr S says he achieved speeds exceeding this). Having said that, I don’t think the question of whether the listed top speed amounted to a false statement of fact is material to

-- 2 of 3 --

the outcome of Mr S’ complaint. I say this because even if there was a false statement, I’m not persuaded it induced Mr S into buying the car. I’ll explain why. Did the advertised top speed induce Mr S into buying the car? The car was supplied to Mr S around October 2022, and he first raised his concerns with BMW in July 2025. Mr S says he trusted the information provided by the dealership at the time and had no reason to believe the advert included incorrect information. He says his concerns were first raised when he checked the car’s specifications online through a VIN search, and when testing the car found that it couldn’t achieve 190mph as he expected. Having considered Mr S’ comments, I’m not persuaded that his belief that the car could achieve 190mph induced him to buy the car. I’m also not persuaded he actually planned to drive the car at such high speeds at the point of sale – as it seems he only attempted to do so a significant time after the point of supply when he was in the process of raising his concerns with BMW. Mr S says the performance package he wanted materially affected the specification, performance and value of the car. While I’ve already explained why I don’t think Mr S was told the car included the performance package, the fact that the matter was only raised nearly three years after the point of supply suggests that this wasn’t a factor so significant as to induce Mr S to buy the car. Mr S has suggested he has some knowledge of the performance pack, so I think if this was a significant consideration he would likely have realised it wasn’t included and raised his concerns much sooner than he did. While I appreciate this will come as a disappointment to Mr S, for the reasons I’ve explained I’m not persuaded there was a misrepresentation. BMW has paid Mr S £200 to recognise the delay in responding to his complaint, which I find fair in the circumstances. It follows that I don’t uphold Mr S’ complaint or require BMW to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is I don’t uphold Mr S’ complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Stephen Billings Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --