Ibrahim Al-Qurashi said one of his relatives bought a 2008 model car for him from a motor company under the lease-ending-in-ownership scheme. “The problems began with my failure to take advantage of the service for periodic maintenance of the vehicle, offered by the company. Under the scheme, customers need to take their vehicles to the company for inspection after every 5,000 km. But I was negligent in taking the car for periodic inspections a number of times. Subsequently, the car had an engine trouble after it crossed about 57,000 km without any periodic checks,” he said.

Al-Qurashi then took the vehicle to the company for repair.

“The employees at the company asked me to leave the car at the maintenance division. They told me that they would write to the parent company to get the repair work approved. But after four months, they informed me that there would not be any insurance coverage for the car, as it had not undergone periodic checks. Then, the company’s branch director suggested me to pay the insurance premium; as such, the car would be under the possession and ownership of the company up to the payment of the last installment. I readily agreed to this. But later, the company backtracked from this position and informed me that technical snags would not be covered under the insurance scheme. These clarifications and negotiations between the company and me had continued for about seven months,” he said.

Al-Qurashi continued saying: “Later, the company officials put forward two suggestions to solve the problem. One was that I pay the outstanding installments in cash and have the car repaired at the company workshop or outside. The second option was to make payment of installments that had been delayed during the seven-month period of negotiations. This meant that I should pay each installment of SR1,299 and then get the car repaired at the company’s workshop or outside. The amount of money for repair had been fixed at SR26,000,” he said. 

Both suggestions were unacceptable to Al-Qurashi, who in turn lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Commerce. However, the ministry’s decision was in favor of the company.

Following this, Al-Qurashi said that he was astonished to learn a new twist in the entire episode: “The company came with a new claim, saying that they had never received my car and it was not in their custody. I handed the car over to the branch manager on Jan. 5, 2010. But now the company denies this. The vehicle is nowhere to be found after a gap of 15 months. It was a big shock when I received a letter from the ministry that stated that the company denied taking delivery of the vehicle,” he said.

Al-Qurashi vehemently refuted this claim, saying that he had received a written acknowledgment from the company’s branch manager when he handed the car over to the maintenance division on Jan. 5, 2010, as well as for the payment of the arrears of installments amounting to SR2,600. He wonders who is responsible for the loss of his car from the enclosures of the company’s maintenance division. He is also afraid of becoming a scapegoat in case somebody commits any crimes or engages in security violations using his car.