Group 1 Retail’s slogan on its emails would be funny if it were not so insulting

When the slogan says one thing, but the conduct says the exact opposite, step forward Group 1 Retail and it’s chain of dealerships.

There are moments in complaints work when a the behaviour of a firm is so brazen, so detached from its own corporate script, that all you can do is stare at it in disbelief.

This is one of them.

While Group 1 Retail, formerly Inchcape, continues to ignore a FOS decision to uphold our client’s GAP complaint, its emails arrive decorated with the almost comedic mantra.

“Integrity – Transparency – Professionalism – Respect.”

Really?

On the facts of the complaint in question, that line is not a mission statement. It is satire.

Let us test that mantra against reality

This particular case involved a grotesque 73.6% chain commission on a GAP insurance policy.

That alone should have been enough to make any firm with a shred of self-awareness stop pretending this was a fair sale.

Instead, Group 1 had the audacity to reject the complaint.

So let us take its sign-off one word at a time.

Integrity?: Choosing to sell a product to a consumer where the commission interests of the dealership overrides the needs of the consumer.

Transparency?: Hiding the commission until such time as the complaint forced disclosure, revealing commission of 73.6%.

Professionalism?: Seeking to rely upon rules at the time of the GAP sale in 2015 not requiring disclosure.

Respect?: Choosing not to implement the FOS decision by delaying redress, and seemingly ignoring reminders by both FOS and us.

An upheld FOS decision should have ended this

This should be a simple conclusion.

However, Group 1 Retail has chosen to turn it into something else entirely… a case study in how little regard parts of this industry appear to have for the Financial Ombudsman Service when the outcome goes against them.

We say this because despite repeated reminders to both the dealership and FOS, payment has still not been made.

This is clearly a firm acting as though a FOS decision is something it can take or leave.

So what exactly is a FOS decision worth?

What is the point of a FOS if the losing firm can simply drag its feet after the event?

This is the result of FOS’ historic reported bias toward financial institutions, to the extent now that ordered compensation is ignored.

And all the while, Group 1 emails maintain the glossy little sermon about “Integrity – Transparency – Professionalism – Respect”.

At some point the gap between branding and behaviour becomes too wide to ignore.

The 73.6% chain commission says plenty. The refusal to pay says even more.

The commission level in this case was already outrageous, and exposes the kind of sales culture that has infected GAP for years with bloated, self-serving, all dressed up as customer protection.

The real revelation in this case is what happened after the FOS decision.

Once a firm has lost, the game should be over.

Yet Group 1 appears to have decided otherwise.

That tells us something important.

It tells us that, for some firms, even losing at FOS is not enough.

Even then, the instinct seems to be delay, resist, ignore, and hope the pressure fades.

That is not the conduct of a business committed to putting things right, moreso the conduct of a business still calculating how much it can get away with.

This is bigger than one dealership

This case is not just about one unpaid award.

It is about the wider message it sends.

It says that a dealership can reject an obviously ugly complaint, lose at FOS stage, fail to pay redress, and still carry on sending polished emails boasting of its values.

It says that some in this industry still do not appear to fear adverse findings.

It says that the authority of FOS decisions looks far weaker than consumers are led to believe.

Because a decision that still leaves the consumer chasing payment is not much of a final decision at all.

It is merely another hurdle.

Escalated, and further redress is now being sought

This case has now been escalated, and further redress is being sought.

That is the consequence of making a bad position worse.

Group 1 Retail had the opportunity to deal with this the easy way.

It could have complied with the FOS decision, paid the redress due, and spared itself further scrutiny.

Instead, it chose to hide behind inertia while continuing to sign off correspondence with words its conduct has thoroughly emptied of meaning.

So, if Group 1 wants to preach integrity, transparency, professionalism and respect, it should start by trying any one of them.

At this moment, the only thing that motto demonstrates is irony.

And if the dealership will not learn the easy way, then it can learn the hard way.