Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Social Money Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S took a point of sale loan with SML in January 2024 to pay for hair treatments costing £1,170. Unhappy with the results, she claimed the provider caused chemical burns, damaged her hair, and fitted extensions poorly, and sought a refund under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. SML declined the claim, noting the provider had offered a follow-up appointment. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld because Miss S failed to provide credible evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation. A key photo of alleged scalp damage was found to be identical to an online forum post predating the treatment, other photos did not corroborate damage claims, supporting testimony lacked verification, and no medical evidence was provided despite serious damage allegations.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while a valid Section 75 claim existed (valid DCS agreement and financial limits met), Miss S failed to provide sufficient evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation. The key photo evidence was discredited as being copied from an online forum predating the treatment. Other photos did not corroborate the damage claims. The supporting testimony from a corrective stylist lacked verification and credibility. The absence of any medical professional evidence or treatment records was inconsistent with claims of chemical burns and permanent scalp damage. Even if breach of contract had been established, the provider's offer of a follow-up appointment would constitute a fair remedy under the Consumer Rights Act's 'repeat performance' right.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website