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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C purchased a paralegal training programme for £1,995 using a credit agreement with Payl8r. She claimed firm A had misrepresented the course by guaranteeing a paralegal position upon completion, which she said was the key factor in her decision to purchase. After one month, Miss C requested a refund. The ombudsman examined whether A had breached contract or made misrepresentation under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Finding that A's written materials only promised support in finding employment rather than a guaranteed job role, and that A provided the promised course features, the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. The ombudsman reminded Payl8r to treat Miss C's financial circumstances with forbearance regarding her arrears.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For misrepresentation, a false statement of fact must be proven and must be the key factor in the consumer's decision. The ombudsman found that A's literature and emails clearly distinguished between 'support in finding employment' and a guaranteed job role. Without call recordings and with written evidence showing only support services were promised, the ombudsman could not find misrepresentation. For breach of contract, the ombudsman found A provided the promised features: qualification, tutor support, work experience, and careers support. Miss C's complaints about quality were not supported by expert evidence, and mixed online reviews did not demonstrate unsatisfactory quality by reasonable person standards.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website