BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED · DRN-6236968

The complaint Ms I complains about the administration of a personal contract purchase (PCP) agreement with BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED trading as BMW Financial Services (BMW). She says that a change in the contract was not properly explained to her. What happened Ms I acquired the car using a PCP agreement that was started in January 2025. The vehicle had a retail price of £23,750. And Ms I financed £19,704 of this. This initial agreement was to be repaid through 48 monthly instalments of £250.71 followed by a final optional repayment of £14,292.08. If Ms I made repayments in line with the initial credit agreement, she would need to repay a total of £30,372.18. In July 2025, Ms I contacted BMW and asked for some information about making a lump sum repayment, she was provided this information, and the contract was changed because of this. The crux of Ms I’s complaint is that the term of the agreement was shortened, and she now needs to pay the final repayment much sooner than she was expecting, and she may struggle to do this. She thinks this wasn’t made clear to her. Ms I complained to BMW about this. BMW considered this complaint and it didn’t uphold it. It said Ms I was provided with full information about the partial repayment she made, and it was acting on her instructions when it amended the agreement. Ms I didn’t agree with this and brought her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our Investigator didn’t uphold Ms I’s complaint. He said that the information provided to Ms I was reasonable and it was clear that she had chosen the option to reduce the term of the agreement after receiving this information. Ms I didn’t agree with the Investigator. She said the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) says that where a consumer makes a partial repayment they must be informed about the number, timing and amount of repayments to be made under the agreement and the duration of the agreement. Ms I says she didn’t receive this and she says she still has not been told of the exact new term of the agreement and exactly when the final repayment is due. She says she is certain that if she had been given the information she was entitled to, she would not have proceeded with the new agreement. She also said that she would have mentioned a neurodevelopmental condition she has and how this would have affected her comprehension of the changes that were made. She says this was not properly considered in the information she was provided. Because Ms I 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

In considering what is fair and reasonable, I need to have regard to the relevant law and regulations, regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and (where appropriate) what I consider was good industry practice at the relevant time. 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 to reach what I think is the right outcome. Following receiving some general information about her contract on 15 July 2025, Ms I called BMW about making a partial repayment to her agreement. I’ve listened to the call, and Ms I was given information about how her regular repayments, and the final optional repayment, could be affected by a partial early repayment. She was given this information in respect of a reduced monthly repayment over the same term, and if the term was shortened. The information she was given was based around a partial early repayment of £4,500. The first option was that the term could be shortened and she would now need to repay ten monthly payments of £151.63. And then the final repayment of £14,292.08. And the second option was that she paid 41 monthly payments of £121.73 and then the final repayment of £14,292.08. Ms I was told in the call that if she reduced the term of the loan the final repayment would be due ‘much sooner’ and the timeframe for this was given to her. Ms I acknowledged this. The two quotes were sent by email to Ms I on the same day. For completeness the information that was sent to Ms I about what would happen if the term was reduced is that: ‘Your next repayment of £250.71 due on 1 August 2025 is unchanged and should be paid as normal Once your partial early repayment has been applied to your account, your remaining repayments will be payable as follows: 10 Monthly Repayments of £151.63 from 1 September 2025. The Optional Final Repayment of £14,292.08, unless you return the Vehicle at the end of the Agreement in accordance with clause 8(3) of the Agreement.’ Ms I paid the £4,500 into her account and on 25 July 2025 BMW emailed Miss W to say this payment had been received and asked her for confirmation of how she wanted to adjust the contract due to this. Ms I responded to this to say: ‘HI Please reduce TERM.’ And she confirmed this was her decision later, and says she also confirmed this by phone. Given all of this I think it’s reasonable to say that Miss I was given enough information about the change in the repayments she would make to understand this. And having listened to the telephone calls where it was explained, I think it would have been reasonable for BMW to think that she did understand it. And her email provided confirmation that she was aware the term of the lending was going to be reduced. I can’t see that Ms I was misled here.

-- 2 of 3 --

Ms I has said that she wasn’t provided with an exact date for when the final repayment was due. But the final repayment isn’t scheduled in the same way the other repayments are. This is because it is optional. When the agreement ends Ms I can choose to pay it, borrowing further from a suitable source if needed. Or she doesn’t need to pay it, and she can return the car. The repayment in this type of payment may not be ‘scheduled’ as part of the contract as it is due after the final monthly repayment. And so, I think the information she was provided is complaint with the CCA as it told her when the scheduled repayments were due and would end, and that there was a final optional payment after this. Added to this I think the information I have indicates that Ms I was aware that the term of the agreement was being shortened and she specifically requested that BMW should reduce the term of the agreement. Ms I has said that she has a neurodevelopmental condition which can cause problems with comprehension of written information. I’ve noted everything that she has said about this but I’m not going to reproduce this here to protect Ms I’s privacy. Whilst I’ve considered this the information was provided to her both in written form an in a telephone call. And as I said above it seems reasonable for BMW to have thought that she understood this. Ms I says that BMW should have treated her differently because of this condition, but I can’t see that it was informed about this. There is no mention or discussion about this in the phone call that took place about the partial payment. So, I don’t think it would be reasonable to say it should have factored this in. Ms I has referred to another decision that an Ombudsman has made, which was upheld, and says that her case is similar. We do look at each complaint individually and this is what I’ve done here. The fact that other cases which concern similar issues have a different outcome doesn’t mean Ms I’s complaint should be upheld. Overall, having considered everything, I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that Ms I wasn’t given enough information about this, or that any further information at the time, would have altered her decision to amend the contract. I appreciate that this is not the answer Ms I is looking for and I’ve taken on board that she is concerned about how she will repay the final repayment. But I can’t uphold the complaint when I don’t think that BMW has acted incorrectly. I hope my explanation has at least persuaded Ms I that I have fully considered her complaint. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold Ms I’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms I to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Andy Burlinson Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --