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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T financed an accountancy course through SM and later claimed the course was misrepresented with false job guarantees and that promised in-person work experience was conducted remotely with poor quality training. SM investigated under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but declined the claim. The ombudsman found SM acted fairly because: the contract clearly stated work experience would be remote (which Mr T accepted); Mr T completed course training without raising quality concerns; Mr T's availability (10am-5pm Mon-Fri) conflicted with standard office hours (9am-5pm) and the required one-day-per-week commitment; and there was no persuasive evidence of misrepresentation, breach of contract, or undue pressure. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that SM was not unreasonable in declining the Section 75 claim because: (1) there was no persuasive evidence of guaranteed job promises in advertising or contracts; (2) remote work experience was clearly stated in terms and accepted by Mr T; (3) Mr T completed course training without raising quality concerns; (4) no expert evidence supported claims of breach of reasonable care and skill; (5) Mr T's availability constraints (10am-5pm Mon-Fri) conflicted with standard office hours (9am-5pm) and the required one-day-per-week commitment; (6) there was no persuasive evidence of undue pressure, particularly given Mr T's delay in complaining; (7) Mr T had access to written information and online course details to make an informed decision.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website