The Pattern
Different businesses, but similar promises, and the same underlying problem.
Businesses reporting concerns to LeaseMisSelling may have dealt with different organisations, but a recurring structure appears in a number of the experiences being reported.
The business believes it is entering into an overall commercial arrangement with a supplier. A separate finance agreement is then used to fund the equipment within that arrangement. The difficulty can arise when promises that were important to the overall deal sit outside the finance agreement itself.
LeaseMisSelling is investigating how frequently this structure appears, how these arrangements were presented to businesses, and what happened when the supplier-side promises were no longer honoured.
Does this sound familiar?
How the pattern works
The Overall
Deal
The starting point is often not a request for finance.
A supplier or introducer offers equipment — such as telecoms, IT or other business equipment — as part of a wider commercial package.
That package may include promised savings, rebates, contributions towards existing contracts, contract settlements or assurances that the overall arrangement will reduce costs.
Those promises can be central to the business's decision to proceed.
The Finance Agreement
The supplier then arranges for the equipment to be funded by a separate finance company.
The business signs a lease or hire agreement directly with that finance company, often understanding it to be simply one part of the overall package.
In practice, the documents may create two separate relationships: one with the supplier and another with the finance company.
Crucially, the promises that influenced the decision to proceed may not appear in the finance agreement itself.
The Long-Term Liability
Once the finance agreement is activated, the finance company pays the supplier for the equipment.
The supplier receives payment, while the business takes on the long-term obligation to make the lease payments.
This can create a separation of risk: the finance payments may continue for the full term, while the benefits promised by the supplier depend on that supplier continuing to honour them.
The Deal
Breaks Down
Problems may emerge months or years later.
Promised rebates or contributions may stop, savings may fail to materialise, or the supplier may dispute what was agreed, stop responding or cease trading.
The business may then discover that the loss of those supplier-side benefits does not automatically end the separate finance agreement.
It can be left making substantial lease payments even though the wider commercial deal that led it to sign has broken down.
Warning Signs
Your experience may be relevant to this investigation if:
-
You were sold an overall package but asked to sign a separate finance agreement.
-
The finance agreement was introduced or arranged by the equipment supplier or salesperson.
-
Important promises about cost, savings, rebates, contributions or contract buy-outs do not appear in the finance agreement.
-
You believed the supplier and finance arrangements formed part of one overall transaction.
-
The value or duration of the finance agreement was not what you believed you were committing to.
-
You later discovered that the finance company had paid the supplier for the equipment.
-
Promised payments, rebates, savings or other benefits subsequently stopped or were disputed.
-
The supplier became unresponsive, insolvent or ceased trading.
-
You are still being required to make lease payments despite the supplier-side arrangement having failed.
-
You would not have entered into the finance agreement without the promises made as part of the wider transaction.
None of these characteristics, individually or collectively, establishes that an agreement was legally mis-sold. They are indicators that allow us to compare independently reported experiences and investigate whether the same commercial structure and sales practices have occurred elsewhere.
From individual disputes to a pattern of evidence
A single disputed agreement tells us about one business; multiple independent experiences can help identify recurring characteristics.
By gathering information about what businesses were promised, which organisations were involved, what they signed and what subsequently happened, LeaseMisSelling is building an evidence base that can be analysed and used to inform regulatory and parliamentary scrutiny.
Did this happen to your business?
If you recognise this pattern, register your experience.
You do not need to determine whether your agreement was legally mis-sold. Tell us what happened and provide any supporting information you have.
Registration is free and confidential and does not commit you to legal action.