Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against V12 Retail Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5498004 of 2025-04-29T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against V12 Retail Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5498004 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | V12 Retail Finance Limited |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | V12 Retail Finance Limited must: (1) Pay for remedial work (removal of screed and flooring, replacement with like-for-like flooring) based on two quotes to be provided by Mrs A, with V12 to select which quote to use; (2) Pay for Mrs A and family members to stay in at least three-star local accommodation with cooking facilities during screed removal period (4-5 days), with Mrs A to select accommodation subject to V12's approval; (3) Pay £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. |
Summary
Mrs A purchased flooring and screed installation for her new build property in May 2023, financed through a fixed sum loan with V12 Retail Finance. The flooring subsequently developed moisture-related issues and remained incomplete with unfitted thresholds and edging. V12 Retail Finance rejected her complaint based on the supplier's inspection and moisture readings. An independent expert inspection 18 months later confirmed the flooring was affected by inadequate moisture detection and lack of protective measures, breaching installation standards. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding V12 Retail Finance liable under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and ordered it to pay for remedial work, temporary accommodation during screed removal, and £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The independent expert's report provided clear evidence that the flooring was not fitted with reasonable care and skill, contrary to the supplier's assertions. The expert concluded that moisture was not detected prior to fitting, protective measures were not incorporated, and the supplier's moisture reading of 3.7% did not equate to actual conditions or installation requirements. This constituted a breach of contract by the supplier for which V12 Retail Finance is liable under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. V12 Retail Finance's rejection of the complaint was therefore unfair and unreasonable.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| V12 Retail Finance Limited, all decisions | 35 | 27% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,153 | 37% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,762 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website