Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Propensio Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S purchased spray foam insulation in December 2022 using a Propensio loan and later claimed the installation was defective and that the supplier misrepresented mortgage implications. After his property sale fell through due to spray foam concerns, Mr S raised a s.75 claim against Propensio in February 2025, claiming £5,788.20 in losses. Propensio rejected the claim, and the ombudsman upheld this rejection, finding that the inspection report provided insufficient evidence to substantiate breach of contract or misrepresentation, and that mortgage concerns were not an active consideration at the time of purchase.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while s.75 conditions were met, the evidence provided was insufficient to substantiate either misrepresentation or breach of contract. Regarding misrepresentation, the ombudsman noted that mortgage concerns were not an active consideration at the time of purchase in December 2022, the RPSA had retracted guidance recommending spray foam removal prior to the sale, and no evidence showed all lenders would decline applications due to spray foam. Regarding breach of contract, the ombudsman found R's report lacked sufficient detail and substantiation, with no mention of uneven application, no reference to relevant product information or industry guidance, no moisture readings in the actual report, and only photographic evidence of felt damage taken during removal (which could have been caused by the removal itself). The ombudsman concluded Propensio reasonably declined the claim based on insufficient evidence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website