Upheld: misrepresentation under Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint against Propensio Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5876941 of 2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00. misrepresentation under Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint against Propensio Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5876941 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Propensio Finance Limited |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | misrepresentation under Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Propensio must: (1) cancel the loan agreement if still active and remove any adverse credit file information; (2) refund all loan repayments made by Mrs M; (3) refund the £1,000 deposit; (4) refund the cost of spray foam removal with evidence if required; (5) add 8% simple interest from date of each payment until settlement; (6) provide tax deduction certificate if required by HMRC. |
Summary
Mrs M complained to Propensio Finance Limited about a Section 75 claim regarding spray foam insulation financed through a fixed sum loan. The salesperson cold-called her, spent less than 30 seconds assessing her loft, and guaranteed energy bill savings of 50-60% without any analysis of her property or energy habits. Mrs M had the spray foam removed before Propensio rejected the claim solely because the product was no longer present. The ombudsman found the salesperson misrepresented the benefits, inducing Mrs M into a contract she would not otherwise have entered, and upheld the complaint. Propensio was directed to cancel the loan, refund all payments plus the deposit and removal costs, and pay 8% simple interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found Mrs M's recollection of the sales process credible and persuasive. The salesperson made specific verbal guarantees about energy bill savings (50-60% reduction) without conducting any analysis of Mrs M's property, energy systems, or habits. The ombudsman concluded on balance of probabilities that Mrs M was given a verbal guarantee rather than merely told savings were possible, and that this misrepresentation induced her into a contract she would not otherwise have entered. The ombudsman noted pressure-selling tactics and the implausibly brief assessment period.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Propensio Finance Limited, all decisions | 16 | 38% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,070 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website