This is my honest account of a personal vehicle purchase that turned into over half a year of stress, cost, and repeated chasing, all because a van I believed was unsafe from the very start was not dealt with promptly after I rejected it. This was not a business purchase. It was a personal finance agreement for a van I intended to use for normal family and practical purposes, the sort of things many people use a van for outside work: family moving, bikes, furniture, helping the kids, weekends away, and day-to-day life.
Instead, what I ended up with was a faulty Ford Transit Custom, a finance company that in my experience took far too long to do almost everything, a broker involved in the middle, a supplying dealership that I found rude and dismissive, months of paying for a vehicle I believed I could not safely use, and a long fight through the Financial Ombudsman Service before I finally got anywhere.
I am writing this as a record of what happened, but also because I think consumers should know what it can feel like to go head to head with a giant finance company when all you want is a fair outcome. At times, this genuinely felt like David versus Goliath. Volkswagen Finance are the BIGGEST Finance company in Europe and the 2nd biggest in the UK, they are an absolute powerhouse, and their customer service, is possibly fallen apart at the seams, a bit like the van I purchased!
Important Disclaimer
I am not writing this to exaggerate, and I am not writing it to pretend every point is a court finding. Where something is my opinion or my experience, I make that clear. But the dates, the correspondence, the Ombudsman involvement, the inspection, the payments, and the outcome are very real.
The Key Dates at a Glance
-
- 16th January 2026: Van delivered. I raised concerns about the smell with the delivery driver and was told it was likely a DPF regeneration because of the long journey. The first journey raised immediate concerns, and both myself and my son suffered serious chest problems afterwards.
- 23rd January 2026: Vehicle rejected in writing to the supplying dealer and VWFS. This was within the short-term right to reject period under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
- 23rd January to 20th March 2026: The complaint remained unresolved for around eight weeks after rejection. During this time the van could not be safely used, costs started building, and I was left chasing progress.
- 6th February 2026: Vehicle moved into storage because I did not believe it was safe to use and it had not been collected.
- 20th March 2026: VWFS confirmed it could not answer the complaint within eight weeks. This was the point where the matter had already dragged on long enough that it had to be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
- March to May 2026: The complaint continued with little meaningful progress. The vehicle remained in storage, finance payments continued, and I was still waiting for VWFS to properly deal with a rejection that had been made within days of delivery.
- May 2026: After finally getting some engagement from VWFS, the person handling the complaint changed and another customer relations contact became involved. This added to the feeling that the matter had to be picked up again after weeks of delay.
- 13th May 2026: VWFS confirmed an RAC inspection was arranged for 22nd May 2026. This was nearly four months after the vehicle had been rejected.
- 21st May 2026: VWFS confirmed the inspection arrangements and acknowledged the ongoing storage situation, with the vehicle still unresolved and costs continuing to build.
- 22nd May 2026: RAC inspection took place at the storage facility. I attended to provide access. The inspection later supported the serious concerns and found the vehicle should not be driven in that condition.
- 1st June 2026: VWFS confirmed it had received the RAC report, but the matter still did not immediately resolve.
- 5th June 2026: VWFS provided me with the RAC report. I responded the same day asking for their position on rejection, collection, finance payments, credit reporting, and my costs.
- 10th June 2026: I updated the Financial Ombudsman Service because the matter was still unresolved, despite the RAC inspection supporting the seriousness of the faults.
- 15th June 2026: VWFS accepted the rejection and said the agreement would be unwound after collection. A finance payment of £557.31 was also taken that day.
- 18th June 2026: Collection arrangements were confirmed. I was told the vehicle would be collected on behalf of VWFS and that the V5 position would be dealt with after collection.
- 19th June 2026: The van was collected from storage. I attended in person, handed over the vehicle, keys and paperwork, and asked about the visible bird mess before transport. I was told it would be fine and that they would sort it.
- 25th June 2026: VWFS made an offer covering some additional costs, but initially refused to include the £200 delivery fee.
- 29th June 2026: Ombudsman investigator issued findings in my favour. He found that VWFS had not acted fairly, that the vehicle had significant unsafe faults, that I had validly exercised my short-term right to reject, and that the delays were not mine.
- 29th June 2026: I accepted the Ombudsman investigator’s findings and continued chasing VWFS because the finance agreement still had not been confirmed as unwound.
- 1st July 2026: I chased VWFS again because the vehicle had been collected, the rejection had been accepted, but I still had no refund and no confirmation that the agreement had ended.
- 7th July 2026: Continued lack of response from VWFS. By this stage, multiple emails had gone unanswered and another finance payment was approaching.
- 13th July 2026: The Ombudsman response deadline passed. VWFS had still not resolved the matter directly with me.
- 14th July 2026: Another finance payment of £557.31 was taken, despite the vehicle having been collected on 19th June and VWFS having already accepted the rejection.
- 29th July 2026: VWFS raised a new issue about alleged exterior contamination / bird mess and possible paintwork damage, more than a month after the vehicle had been collected.
- Late July to early August 2026: VWFS requested further proof of payment for costs. I provided redacted bank statements and supporting evidence, adding more time and stress to a complaint that had already dragged on for months.
- 14th August 2026: Another finance payment of £557.31 was taken. By this point, the vehicle had been out of my possession for nearly two months.
- August 2026: The Ombudsman investigator confirmed that he was not persuaded by VWFS’s evidence on the bird mess issue and continued pressing VWFS for a response.
- 21st August 2026: VWFS later said the agreement was settled by CarMoney on this date. However, I still had to wait for clear confirmation and settlement details.
- 26th August 2026: VWFS accepted the Ombudsman investigator’s recommendations and provided a settlement breakdown through the Ombudsman.
- Late August 2026: A pending refund appeared for £557.31, suggesting the most recent monthly finance payment was being reversed separately.
- 7th September 2026: VWFS confirmed a total redress payment calculation including refunded rentals, additional expenses, statutory interest and compensation. The first breakdown was confusing and appeared not to add up, so I queried it. VWFS later confirmed that the earlier interest figure had been presented incorrectly and that the final paid amount was correct, but their calculations were not.
The Van Arrived and the Problems Started Immediately
The van in question was a Ford Transit Custom, 2020 plate, supplied under a hire purchase agreement with Volkswagen Financial Services, usually referred to as VWFS. The purchase was arranged via CarMoney as the broker, and the actual supplying garage was the dealership from which the vehicle had been sourced.
The Supplying Garage: Precision Motor Group, Harlow.
I do not want to say anything inaccurate about the supplying garage, so I am going to describe this carefully and exactly as my own experience of dealing with them.
The van was purchased from Precision Motor Group LTD, Harlow, with the finance arranged through VWFS and involvement from CarMoney. This was a personal purchase, not a business purchase, and I expected a roadworthy, safe, usable vehicle. My experience with the supplying garage was extremely poor. Once concerns were raised, I found them dismissive, rude, and completely uninterested in taking proper responsibility for the situation.
The van was delivered on 16th January 2026 (At a cost of £200). Almost immediately, I raised concerns about the smell with the delivery driver. The van smelled wrong. There was a strong smell that made me uneasy, and I queried it there and then. I was told that it was likely just a DPF regeneration because the van had been driven such a long distance to be delivered to me. In other words, the explanation I was given was that the smell was normal and connected to the long journey.
That explanation did not reassure me for long, on the very first journey, the next day, the concerns became far more serious. There were strong fumes, concerns about exhaust or burning smells entering the cabin, poor fuel economy, unstable revs, and a general sense that the vehicle did not feel right at all. Even worse, both my son and I had serious chest problems afterwards. I am not pretending to offer a medical diagnosis here, and I am not claiming that I can medically prove every symptom was caused by the van. But I know what happened, I know how it felt, and I know the timing was frightening.
This was not a minor niggle. This was not a scratch, a dent, or a bit of buyer’s remorse. This was a vehicle that, from the first journey, I believed was unsafe and unfit to use.
The Phone Call With the Supplying Garage
When I contacted the supplying garage about the problems, I expected some basic concern, especially given how quickly the issues had appeared and the fact that fumes and health concerns were being raised. Instead, my experience was the opposite.
On the phone, I felt I was spoken to in a rude and confrontational way. In my view, the person I spoke to had no real interest in arranging to collect the vehicle or dealing with the rejection properly. I was effectively told to bring the van back myself “so they could have a proper word!”. That was completely unreasonable from my perspective. I had already raised serious concerns about fumes, health symptoms, and whether the van was safe to drive. Yet I was being told, on his word, and “my word is my bond” that it was fine and that I should drive it back myself.
I was not prepared to do that. I was not going to put myself, my family, or other road users at risk just because the supplying garage did not want to arrange collection of a vehicle I had rejected.
Worse still, during that conversation, I felt I was being treated as though I was making it up. In my recollection, I was effectively called a liar, or at the very least spoken to as though my concerns were not genuine, there was an element of being threatened with the “proper word” comment, something that does not faze me, the vehicle was wrong, I won’t back down – That moment stuck with me because I was not asking for anything unreasonable. I was reporting serious issues with a vehicle that had just been delivered, including fumes, chest symptoms after the first journey, and a complete loss of confidence in the vehicle’s safety.
The Wet Belt Receipt Concern
Another issue that added to my lack of confidence was the paperwork around the wet belt, something that was not present on delivery, I called the garage and they told me they would send me a copy later that day, when it arrived via WhatsApp it was a receipt or document suggesting that the wet belt had been done. I am being careful here: I am not stating that the receipt was fake, and I am not making a formal allegation that the work was not carried out.
What I am saying is that, to me, the receipt looked questionable and did not give me confidence. In the wider context of the van’s condition, the smell, the fumes, the poor running, the attitude from the supplying garage, and the later inspection findings, that paperwork became another reason I did not trust what I had been sold. I could not find the company who did the wet belt repair online, and the promised “copy in the post” never arrived.
When a vehicle already feels wrong from the first journey, and the seller then responds dismissively, any questionable-looking paperwork becomes part of the bigger picture. It made me feel even more strongly that something was not right.
This Was Not Buyer’s Remorse
I want to stress this clearly: this was not buyer’s remorse. I did not reject the van because I changed my mind. I did not reject it because I found a cheaper one somewhere else. I did not reject it because of cosmetic issues. I rejected it because I believed it was unsafe, not of satisfactory quality, and not fit for purpose.
The van was delivered on 16th January 2026. I raised concerns immediately. The first journey caused serious worry. Both myself and my son had chest problems afterwards. I then rejected the vehicle in writing on 23rd January 2026 to the finance company (VWFS), well within the short-term right to reject period under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
From that point onwards, in my view, the supplying garage, CarMoney, and VWFS should have treated this as a serious rejected vehicle complaint involving health and safety concerns. Instead, I was left feeling like I had to fight every step of the way – and I would have taken this all the way to court and stood there against their solicitors to stop this being unjust.
Personal Purchase, Not Business Use
That point matters. This was not a van bought by a company fleet department, a trades business, or a limited company. This was a personal purchase under a regulated consumer finance agreement. I did not need a van for daily trade use, but I did need one for genuine personal, practical use. As a father with adult children and one younger child, I regularly have use for a van moving items, helping family, transporting bikes, collecting furniture, and dealing with normal day-to-day situations where a van is genuinely useful, and especially great in the summer for a makeshift campervan!
Because this was a personal consumer purchase, my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 mattered. Under that Act, goods supplied by a trader must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. In the case of a vehicle, that includes things like its general condition, safety, durability, and whether a reasonable person would consider it acceptable, taking into account its age, mileage, price, and description. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 also gives consumers a short-term right to reject faulty goods. The standard period for exercising that short-term right to reject is 30 days. That is why the timing in my case is so important.
The van was delivered on 16th January 2026. I rejected it in writing on 23rd January 2026. That was on the 7th day of my delivery, and well within the 30-day short-term right to reject period.
In plain English, I was not asking VWFS or the supplying garage for a favour. I was exercising a statutory consumer right because I believed the vehicle was unsafe, not of satisfactory quality, and not fit for purpose from the start. That meant I was paying for a personal vehicle that I then felt I could not safely use, while also having to make alternative arrangements and absorb the stress and inconvenience myself.
In my view, once that rejection was made, the matter should have been handled swiftly and fairly. It was not.
The Van Goes Into Storage
Because I believed the vehicle was unsafe, I stopped using it. I was not prepared to keep driving a van that I believed was exposing me and my family to exhaust fumes and that felt fundamentally wrong mechanically. That and I had no space to store it whilst needing another vehicle, I was not willing to leave it on the road whilst not in use, and with every intent of sending it back, but time was ticking on and I was in the middle of a massive home downsize.
On or around 6th February 2026, the van was moved into storage at WCP Parking Bristol, they provide storage, airport parking and more, this cost me around £9 per night, and there was also a separate movement or recovery cost of £180 to get it there.
This is important because VWFS later tried, at different stages, to distance itself from the consequences of the storage. But in my view, and later in the view of the Ombudsman investigator, the reason the vehicle sat there for so long was not because I chose to store it for fun or convenience. It was there because:
- the van had been rejected,
- I did not believe it was safe to use,
- it had not been collected, and
- VWFS did not deal with the rejection promptly.
The Finance Payments Started and So Did the Feeling of Being Trapped
While the complaint dragged on, the finance payments continued. The full payments made were:
- 16 February 2026: £557.31
- 16 March 2026: £557.31
- 14 April 2026: £557.31
- 14 May 2026: £557.31
- 15 June 2026: £557.31
- 14 July 2026: £557.31
- 14 August 2026: £557.31
Total finance payments made: £3,901.17.
That was the financial reality of this complaint. I was paying for a van I believed I could not safely use, while storage costs continued, tax had to be kept up, insurance had to be kept up, and life did not pause just because the complaint was unresolved. I also could not simply move on and replace the vehicle easily because this finance agreement remained hanging over me.
VWFS Takes Too Long to Do Almost Everything
One of the main reasons this whole situation became so extreme was the sheer pace – or lack of pace – from VWFS. From my perspective, the customer service was appalling. Emails would sit. Questions would go unanswered. Progress would be painfully slow. Different people became involved. And I was repeatedly left feeling that I had to do all the running just to get basic updates.
The initial emails to them left unanswered for days, even weeks, generic replies, until finally someone took charge, however this was short lived, after finally getting some movement 2 weeks in from my initial email, the person handling the complaint at VWFS left the company. I had already spent time trying to make progress, and then found the matter effectively moved to someone else. That may sound minor on paper, but when you are living through it as a consumer, every change of contact creates more uncertainty. It means more waiting, more re-explaining, more being left in the dark, and more of that same feeling that nobody is taking ownership.
By 20th March 2026, VWFS had confirmed that it had been unable to answer my complaint within eight weeks. That in itself says a lot. A van rejected within days of delivery, on safety grounds, was still unresolved nearly two months later.
At times, it genuinely felt as though the process was dragging on to the point where an ordinary consumer might simply give up, and I am convinced this is what they bank on – I did not give up, I despise injustice, but I often felt like doing so.
The RAC Inspection Took Months to Arrange
CarMoney kept emailing me, but I refused to deal with multiple companies, VWFS were my point of contact and they were asking me to drive the van to get an inspection, I refused, I told them they would need to finance it as the £60 they offered towards the cost wouldn’t even get the bonnet open in most places, plus their conditions on the garage (having to be VAT registered and Limited) and having to have everything catalogued put most local, fairer priced, garages off taking it on. Eventually, VWFS arranged for an independent inspection by the RAC.
On or around 13th May 2026, I was informed that an RAC inspection had been arranged for 22nd May 2026. Again, look at the timeline. The vehicle was delivered on 16 January. It was rejected on 23rd January. The inspection did not take place until 22 May – That was nearly four months after rejection.
On 22nd May 2026, I took the day off work, attended the storage site so the RAC inspection could take place. I had to make myself available, attend in person, and give access to the vehicle. The RAC technician was acting for VWFS, so he could not formally share the findings with me there and then. But I watched him inspect the van and could see his reactions. Later, the report confirmed the serious concerns.
The inspection found multiple significant issues and confirmed, in substance, what I had been saying all along: the vehicle was not roadworthy and should not be driven in that condition. This explains why he did not take the vehicle out on a proposed test drive. That was vindication, but it was also maddening. I had spent months being treated as though I had to prove something that later turned out to be well-founded. Other issues as well as the gases escaping were found, issues later described as serious, so serious that a professional RAC inspection driver would not road test the vehicle.
The Ombudsman Gets Involved
Because the delays kept mounting, I referred the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. This is a free service, very busy, but extremely helpful. The Ombudsman investigator, Tim, eventually reviewed the timeline, the facts, the inspection findings, and the losses I had incurred. His written findings were hugely important because they backed up the central point I had been making from the beginning.
He found that:
- there was no real dispute that the vehicle had significant, unsafe faults,
- the van was of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply,
- I had clearly and validly exercised my short-term right to reject, and
- the long timeline and consequential losses were not my responsibility.
One of the most important lines in the Ombudsman material was the clear statement that:
“The protracted timeline and consequential losses are not Mr Molton’s responsibility; the delays were not his.”
That sentence matters because it goes right to the heart of what made this whole saga so unfair.
VWFS Finally Accepts the Rejection
On 15th June 2026, VWFS finally upheld my complaint and accepted the rejection. VWFS confirmed in writing that the finance agreement would be unwound once the vehicle had been collected, and that all payments made under the agreement would be refunded in full once that unwind was completed.
VWFS said:
“The agreement cannot be formally unwound, and refunds cannot be processed, until the vehicle has been returned.”
It also said:
“I can confirm all payments made will be refunded in full once the agreement has been unwound…”
And further:
“your agreement will be unwound in full once the vehicle has been collected. All payments will be refunded…”
This should have been the moment where the case became straightforward. The rejection had been accepted. The vehicle needed to be collected. The agreement needed to be unwound. Payments needed to be refunded. You would assume at this point that it would be “done and dusted” over the next few days.
The Collection of the Van
Collection was eventually arranged through HC Recovery & Transportation Ltd, acting on behalf of VWFS, with coordination involving CarMoney. On 19th June 2026, I took another day off work and attended the storage site again and handed the vehicle over for collection.
This is another detail worth recording: even the act of returning the van took my time, my presence, and more energy on a situation that should already have been resolved. At collection, I asked whether the van needed jet washing because there was visible bird mess on it after sitting in storage for so long. I was told, in effect, that it would be fine and that they would sort it.
Even After Collection, the Finance Was Still Not Properly Closed
You might think that once VWFS had accepted the rejection and the van had been collected, the rest would be handled promptly. That is not how it felt from my side. The agreement was not promptly confirmed as ended, the refund was not immediately processed, and further monthly payments continued to be taken after the point where VWFS had already accepted that the agreement should be unwound.
That was one of the most upsetting parts of the whole experience. I was still paying finance on a vehicle I no longer possessed. By then, it no longer felt like a normal complaint delay. It felt like a system that simply would not stop hurting the consumer even after the main point had been conceded.
The Additional Costs I Incurred
Because of the lengthy delay, I incurred a range of direct losses and associated costs, including:
- VWFS finance payments: £3,901.17
- Storage costs: over £1,100
- Recovery / movement to storage: £180.00
- Vehicle delivery fee: £200.00
- Road tax: around £150.99
- Insurance: hundreds of pounds, including cancellation costs
- Van hire / rental vehicle costs: over £300
- Attendance time and repeated visits: my own time, unrecoverable in any real sense
I also had to gather and provide receipts, bank statements, invoices, payment schedules, storage records, and supporting evidence. That took a huge amount of time and effort. I even had to redact unrelated personal transactions from my bank statements to protect my privacy while still proving the relevant payments. This was not a quick complaint form and done. This became an evidence project that took almost 30 hours of my time, unpaid to gather and prove, I am not an accountant.
The Bird Mess Argument and Why I Thought It Was Unfair
After the vehicle had been collected, 1 month and 10 days later to be exact, VWFS later raised an issue about the van’s exterior condition, referring to bird mess or contamination and possible paintwork damage. I found this deeply unfair.
First, the vehicle had only been sitting in open-air storage for so long because VWFS had taken so long to move matters forward. Secondly, the van had been collected on 19th June 2026 and was no longer in my possession or control, any exterior issue being raised more than a month after collection, without what I regarded as clear evidence of timing and causation, felt like yet another attempt to move away from the central problem. VWFS were now asking for money to be deducted from any potential claim – potential claim? They had already agreed to unwind the finance agreement and refund me over 1 month ago!
My view was simple: the vehicle was never fit for sale in the first place, it had been rejected within the proper legal timeframe, it was later confirmed not roadworthy, and the prolonged storage period was caused by delay. It did not seem fair or reasonable to try to use the consequences of that delay against me. Birds poo after all, had it been inside the storage costs would have been double – The Ombudsman investigator was not persuaded by VWFS’s position on that point either, which was another significant moment in the complaint.
The Human Cost: Stress, Worry, and Wanting to Give Up
This whole process took a serious toll on me. I spent dozens upon dozens of hours writing emails, chasing responses, compiling receipts, preparing evidence, attending the storage yard, speaking to the Ombudsman, speaking to my GP, checking bank movements, and trying to understand what on earth was going on.
At times, I estimated the total time lost at more than 80 hours, and that does not include the mental load of it all: the stress of seeing another payment due, the uncertainty of not knowing when it would end, the anger of having to prove the same thing repeatedly, and the sheer emotional exhaustion of being ignored or delayed.
I genuinely felt like giving up at points. That is one of the ugliest parts of a drawn-out complaint like this: it can feel as though the process is so slow and draining that the ordinary person is expected to get tired and walk away – I did not walk away, but I understand exactly why some people would.
The stress also had a real effect on my health. After returning from holiday with my youngest son, I suffered a serious panic attack. I spoke to my doctor, and stress was identified as the likely cause. I do not make that point lightly. I am not trying to overstate it. But I know how much this complaint wore me down.
The Ombudsman’s Findings: The Small Man Was Right
The most important part of the Ombudsman investigator’s findings was not just that he agreed with me in principle. It was that he clearly identified the unfairness in how the matter had unfolded.
His findings said, in effect, that:
- the vehicle had significant unsafe faults at supply,
- I had validly exercised my short-term right to reject,
- VWFS, as supplier under the agreement, was responsible for the complaint about quality,
- the prolonged timeline was not my fault, and
- I should be reimbursed for the direct losses I had reasonably incurred.
That is as close as you get, in plain terms, to an independent official body saying: the consumer was right to reject, the delay was not his fault, and the company should put him back in the position he should have been in.
The Final Redress
Eventually, on 7th September 2026, VWFS emailed me with what they said was the final redress calculation. This came after VWFS had already accepted the rejection almost three months earlier, after the vehicle had already been collected, after the Ombudsman investigator had issued findings in my favour, and after VWFS had accepted the Ombudsman investigator’s recommendations. By that point, I had already spent months chasing, proving, waiting, and dealing with continued finance payments.
VWFS confirmed a total redress payment of £6,636.84. This included reimbursement of agreed losses, statutory interest, and compensation for trouble and upset.
The final calculation included:
- Monthly rentals refund: £3,343.86
- Insurance costs: £572.09
- Storage costs: £1,197.00
- Road tax: £150.99
- Recovery costs: £180.00
- Vehicle hire costs: £302.00
- Delivery costs: £200.00
Those agreed costs came to £5,945.94.
VWFS later clarified that the correct interest calculation was:
- Gross interest: £113.61
- Less tax deduction: £22.72
- Net interest: £90.90
This brought the reimbursement figure to £6,036.84.
In addition, VWFS paid:
- £100.00 for time taken
- £500.00 for distress and inconvenience
That brought the total redress payment to £6,636.84.
There was still confusion at the end because the first breakdown VWFS sent me appeared to show a much larger interest figure, which made the total look wrong. I had to query that again before VWFS clarified that the earlier breakdown had been incorrectly presented.
That summed up the whole experience for me. Even at the final stage, I still had to check everything line by line because I could not rely on the figures being presented clearly the first time.
I had already had to fight over the rejection, the storage, the delivery fee, the continued payments, the alleged bird mess issue, the bank statement evidence, and the finance agreement being closed. Then, when the final redress email finally arrived, I had to question the calculation as well.
For a major finance company, I found that deeply frustrating. The central point remained the same: after months of resistance, delay, poor communication, and repeated chasing, VWFS had to accept that I was entitled to redress. But even then, the final figures caused confusion and required yet another email from me to get clarity.
The £100 for Time Still Felt Like an Insult
Although I appreciate that compensation awards through complaints and Ombudsman processes are not designed to mirror legal damages in a court claim, I would be lying if I said the £100 time and trouble element did not feel insulting. When you have spent more than 80 hours dealing with something, had your health affected, your family life affected, your finances disrupted, and your head filled for months with frustration and uncertainty, £100 for that time does not exactly scream accountability.
Yes, there was also a separate £500 distress and inconvenience payment. And yes, I understand that is how these things are often structured, but from where I was sitting, it still felt like very little recognition of just how awful the whole experience had been. That figure does not properly reflect the days I lost, the travel and taxi costs around van hire, the stress, the time spent chasing, the delay in being able to move on, or the months of having a finance agreement hanging over me for a vehicle I had rejected.
No Real Accountability for the Customer Service
That is perhaps the biggest frustration I still have. Even after everything that happened, it never really felt as though VWFS took proper accountability for the sheer length of time involved and the quality of the customer experience.
In my view, the customer service was dreadful. The delays were excessive. The communication was poor. The change of handlers did not help. The finance unwind was not handled promptly. The additional payments after collection were deeply upsetting. The later condition issue felt like another obstacle. And the whole thing seemed far harder than it should ever have been.
This is a major finance company. In my opinion, a company of that size should be able to deal with a valid rejection of a defective vehicle far more quickly, more transparently, and more professionally than this.
Why This Was a David vs Goliath Fight
This complaint became, in every meaningful sense, a David versus Goliath story. On one side, there was me: one ordinary consumer, trying to enforce my rights after a personal vehicle purchase went wrong, a one hundred percent genuine case, looking for assistance to reverse it and make it right – On the other side, there was a huge finance company, a broker in the middle, a supplying dealership that I found deeply unhelpful, and a process that often felt stacked against the individual simply because of how slow and tiring it all became.
The “win” was not some jackpot. I was not trying to profit. Even after redress, there are things that no payment really puts right: the lost time, the stress, the health worry, the disruption, the repeated chasing, the lack of a usable vehicle, and the months spent relying on other arrangements. I was trying to get back what I had lost, get out of a finance agreement for a vehicle I had rejected almost immediately, and stop being punished financially for someone else’s failings.
That is why I think this story matters. It shows how much effort it can take just for a consumer to reach a point that should have been obvious much earlier.
What I Learned
- Act quickly and in writing. If you need to reject a vehicle, put it in writing clearly.
- Know the legal term. The right here is the short-term right to reject under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which applies within 30 days.
- Keep every receipt and every email. You may need them all.
- Take photos and keep records. These matter later.
- Do not assume the company will move quickly. In my experience, that was a huge mistake.
- Be very careful before stopping payments. Stopping payments during a finance complaint can create serious problems, including arrears or credit-file issues. I kept paying while the complaint was being dealt with, even though I strongly disputed the position.
- Be prepared to involve the Ombudsman. Without that, I do not believe this would have resolved fairly.
- Check the figures yourself. Even at settlement stage, it was necessary to check the numbers carefully.
Final Thoughts
This whole situation should have been far more straightforward than it became. The van was delivered on 16th January 2026. The first journey raised immediate health and safety concerns. I rejected it on 23rd January 2026, well within my legal short-term right to reject period. Months later, an independent RAC inspection supported the serious concerns and found that the van should not be driven. VWFS eventually accepted the rejection. The Ombudsman agreed that the delays were not my fault and that my consequential losses should be reimbursed.
But getting from that first journey to that eventual outcome took months of stress, repeated chasing, financial pressure, and a level of effort that no ordinary consumer should have to invest just to enforce what should have been a clear and valid rejection. That is why this story matters, I did not try to profit from any of this. I tried to recover my losses, protect my family, and get out of a finance agreement for a vehicle I believed was unfit and unsafe from the start.
And in the end, after going head to head with a giant finance company and a slow, exhausting process, I finally got somewhere. I just should never have had to fight this hard.
This article is a personal account of my own experience and is not legal advice. If you are dealing with a similar issue, take independent advice based on your own circumstances.
