Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Carnegie Consumer Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained about a point of sale loan of £7,740 taken out with Carnegie Consumer Finance Limited to fund a course. He raised multiple complaint points including alleged misrepresentation about cancellation rights and course content, claims that he was a vulnerable consumer due to limited English language skills who should have been offered translation services and an English test, allegations that Carnegie failed to conduct adequate affordability checks, and claims he was prevented from using the cooling off period. Carnegie provided video evidence of the sales meeting showing clear discussion of loan terms and affordability checks, and records showing Mr A received course materials promptly and had an extended cooling off period until 28 October 2021. The ombudsman found no credible evidence of misrepresentation, determined Mr A's demonstrated communication abilities did not indicate vulnerability requiring special treatment, found that while affordability checks lacked verification the information provided suggested affordability, and concluded Mr A was not prevented from using the cooling off period. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard where evidence was incomplete or contradictory. On vulnerability, while struggling with English can indicate vulnerability, Mr A's demonstrated ability to participate in detailed video calls, read and understand English documentation, and communicate effectively did not reasonably indicate he needed translation services or an English test. On misrepresentation, the ombudsman found no credible evidence beyond Mr A's assertion that contracts were cancellable at any time, and noted Mr A did not raise concerns about course content when documents arrived despite having the opportunity. On affordability, while Carnegie's checks lacked verification of information provided, Mr A did not dispute the accuracy of his income and expenditure information, and on its face he could afford the repayments. On the cooling off period, Mr A was not prevented from cancelling as he had until 28 October 2021 and the course materials arrived promptly; his later cancellation request in December 2021 contradicted his claim he wanted to cancel within the cooling off period.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website