BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED · DRN-6167152

The complaint Ms P is unhappy with how BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED trading as Alphera Financial Services (Alphera) treated her when she was in financial difficulty in relation to a car financed under a hire purchase agreement. What happened In October 2021 Ms P was supplied with a used car through a hire purchase agreement with Alphera. She paid an advance payment of £500 and the agreement was for £17,031.80 over 60 months; with 60 monthly payments of £275.53. Ms P complains that Alphera refused to offer her reasonable forbearance, terminated her agreement, and appointed a third party recovery firm after she experienced a period of financial difficulty in 2025. Ms P said she offered to clear the arrears by paying Alphera in instalments. She said they declined this request and terminated her agreement. She formally complained to them in December 2025. She was also unhappy that they transferred her account to a third-party recovery firm whilst the complaint was still being investigated. Ms P told us that she is a registered carer and relied on the car on a daily basis to carry out her caring responsibilities. She did not believe Alphera’s decision to terminate the agreement in November 2025 was fair or proportionate given her circumstances, the fact that she was seeking help, and alternative approaches were available. Alphera said Ms P went into arrears in January 2025 and remained in arrears until the agreement was terminated on 21 November 2025. They said they made multiple attempts to contact Ms P about the arrears by email, telephone and letter. They said Ms P responded on only one occasion – in June 2025 when she requested an income and expenditure form. This was sent to her but Alphera said Ms P didn’t return it to them. They said they issued a notice of default to Ms P on 27 October 2025. This informed Ms P that action was required within 20 days or the agreement would be terminated. They said they informed her on 21 November 2025 that they had terminated her agreement and transferred her account to a third party repossession agent. Alphera didn’t uphold Ms P’s complaint. They said they had attempted to work with Ms P to resolve the situation and provided her with advance notice of the eventual termination of her agreement. Ms P was unhappy with this response, so she referred her complaint to our service for investigation. Our investigator said she was satisfied that Alphera had tried to contact Ms P over many months using phone, email, and post, about the arrears. She said because Ms P didn’t

-- 1 of 4 --

respond, she didn’t think Alphera acted unfairly by terminating the agreement and refusing to accept a payment plan when Ms P eventually contacted them for support on 15 December 2025. Our investigator thought Ms P could have contacted Alphera much sooner to try and arrange suitable support for the issues she was facing. Ms P didn’t agree with the investigator. She said she’d paid approximately three years of a four-year hire purchase agreement, and the arrears represented a small proportion of the total paid under the agreement. She said the decision to terminate the agreement was disproportionate in the circumstances, particularly given the essential nature of the car for her caring responsibilities, and her vulnerability. Because Ms P didn’t agree, this matter has been passed to me to make 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. Having done so, I’ve reached the same overall conclusions as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. 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 view on the balance of probabilities – what I think is most likely 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. Ms P was supplied with a car under a hire purchase agreement. This is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means we are able to investigate complaints about it. As a regulated firm, Alphera must abide by rules set out by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in its handbook. Section CONC 7.3 explains what firms like Alphera must do when consumers are in financial difficulty. CONC 7.3.4 states: “A firm must treat customers in or approaching arrears or in default with forbearance and due consideration.” The hire purchase agreement Ms P entered into explained what was likely to happen if payments were missed. Under the heading “Missing payments” it said: “We may become entitled to terminate the agreement and recover possession of the vehicle”. Ms P first missed a payment in January 2025. Alphera wrote to her on 28 January 2025. This letter clearly set out the amount of the arrears, and included the warning that “Any vehicle linked to this finance Agreement may also be at risk if repayments are not maintained.” Alphera wrote to Ms P on a further 17 occasions between February 2025 and October 2025. These letters explained the amount of the arrears, and contained the same warning about the consequences of failing to respond. The letters also included a telephone number for Ms P to contact them, and an information sheet from the FCA. This provided information to help customers like Ms P, especially those who like her were feeling overwhelmed and stressed, about organisations who could provide free debt advice.

-- 2 of 4 --

I see from the contact notes provided by Alphera that they also emailed her regularly and called her on at least 12 occasions. Ms P only responded on one occasion – when she asked Alphera for an Income and Expenditure form, but there’s no evidence that it was returned to them. If Ms P had returned it I would’ve expected Alphera to provide her with the appropriate forbearance and support she needed, and as expected by the FCA, and explained in CONC 7.3 (as set out above). So when she failed to respond, I think it was reasonable for Alphera to issue the default notice on 27 October 2025. This notice made it clear that Ms P must pay the arrears by 16 November 2025. It explained that if she didn’t, Alphera would: “1. terminate the Agreement and take further steps to recover the amount due which may include repossessing the Vehicle. Any costs incurred by us in doing so may be added to the amount already owed, and 2. record a Default on your credit file with Credit Reference Agencies after 28 days from the date of this letter, which may affect your ability to obtain credit and other financial facilities from us and other organisations for up to 6 years”. Ms P didn’t respond to the default notice. So given the number of times they’d attempted to contact Ms P by letter, telephone, and email, including sending relevant formal notices, and her failure to respond at all, I think it was fair and reasonable for them to terminate Ms P’s agreement on 21 November 2025. Ms P told Alphera that she did not engage promptly following missed payments “due to significant anxiety, stress, and feeling overwhelmed”. I accept this to be true, but I must consider that she had several months to respond, and only responded after the agreement was terminated. I’m satisfied that Alphera gave her sufficient time and opportunity to speak to them before they terminated the agreement. For that reason I’m satisfied their decision to terminate the agreement was fair and reasonable. And I think it reasonable that they continued to take action to enforce the debt given the extended period of time where they’d received no response from Ms P. Ms P told Alphera that she does not consent to repossession of the car that is the subject of the agreement. Alphera will be aware of the provision in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, repeated in their agreement, and as explained in the letter terminating the agreement, that they cannot recover possession of the car without a Court Order if she has paid one-third of the total price of the goods, unless she now consents. I appreciate that this decision will come as a disappointment to Ms P, especially given the reason she needs the car, but I won’t be asking Alphera to take any further action to resolve this complaint. If she has not already done so, Ms P may wish to seek advice from a solicitor or one of the organisations listed on the FCA fact sheet. And I remind Alphera to treat Ms P fairly and with due consideration as required under the guidance, accounting for her vulnerability and financial difficulties. My final decision For the reasons explained, I don’t uphold Ms P’s complaint about BMW FINANCIAL

-- 3 of 4 --

SERVICES (GB) LIMITED trading as Alphera Financial Services. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms P to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Gordon Ramsay Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --