Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Carnegie Consumer Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr V purchased a training course financed through a fixed sum loan from Carnegie in January 2023. After discovering negative online reviews about the supplier and losing trust, he requested cancellation in February 2023, after the 14-day cooling-off period had expired. Mr V argued the cancellation provisions were not made clear to him, though he later clarified his concerns were personal rather than based on fraud allegations. The ombudsman found that the registration form Mr V signed clearly set out the 14-day cancellation rights and that he had not alleged specific misrepresentation about the course itself, therefore Carnegie did not act unfairly in declining the cancellation request.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Section 75 and Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, establishing Carnegie's potential liability for the supplier's actions. However, the ombudsman found that the registration form clearly set out the 14-day cancellation rights, and a reasonable person signing the document would have understood these terms. Mr V did not allege misrepresentation about cancellation provisions, only that they were unclear. The negative online reviews did not constitute evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation specific to Mr V's case. The ombudsman found no evidence that E failed to provide the course with reasonable care and skill or that Carnegie acted inappropriately in collecting identification and payment information. Therefore, Carnegie did not unfairly decline the cancellation request.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website