Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Raylo Group Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-4991399 of 2024-08-29T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Raylo Group Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-4991399 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2024-08-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Raylo Group Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | RGL directed to: (1) End the hire agreement and remove it from Mrs S's credit file; (2) Refund all payments made by Mrs S towards the hire agreement (including any deposit), adding 8% simple interest per year calculated from the date payments were made to the date refunds are paid; (3) Pay Mrs S £150 compensation for the non-financial impact of its errors and poor service. |
Summary
Mrs S entered a consumer hire agreement with RGL for a refurbished mobile phone on 15 March 2023. Upon receiving the phone in poor condition with significant dents and scratches, she emailed RGL on 20 March 2023 requesting return and asking for a replacement 'clean' phone or agreement cancellation. RGL misinterpreted this as a warranty replacement request and sent a replacement without clarification, which Mrs S refused. The replacement phone was misplaced by RGL's logistics partner, yet RGL continued charging Mrs S and initially refused to cancel the agreement without a £400 fee. After Mrs S made a formal complaint, RGL eventually agreed to refund her payments, but failed to process the refund because a technical issue removed her bank details from her email, and RGL did not follow up. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding RGL's service poor throughout, and directed it to refund all payments with 8% interest and pay £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that RGL's service was poor throughout. Although the phone was advertised as refurbished, it was not in acceptable condition, entitling Mrs S to reject it under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. RGL misinterpreted Mrs S's nuanced email request and should have sought clarification before sending a replacement. The root cause of subsequent problems was the logistical delay in locating the replacement phone. RGL's handling of Mrs S's concerns was indifferent, requiring her to make a formal complaint before investigating. Most significantly, RGL failed to follow up on Mrs S's email containing her new bank details due to a technical issue that removed the screenshot, causing an unjustified delay in refunding her payments. The ombudsman rejected RGL's argument that compensatory interest should be reduced due to FOS investigation delays, as the root cause was RGL's failure to resolve matters earlier. RGL's offer of a partial voucher instead of a full refund was inappropriate.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Raylo Group Limited, all decisions | 6 | 50% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 47,449 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website