Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Conister Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O obtained a £3,000 fixed sum loan from Conister Bank Limited to fund an online training course. After two sessions, he experienced blurred vision and eye strain, which he attributed to the course. When the course provider declined his requests for schedule changes and a refund, Mr O asked Conister to cancel the loan. Conister refused, and Mr O complained to the FOS. The ombudsman found no breach of contract or misrepresentation by the course provider, as Mr O had not provided persuasive evidence that his vision problems were caused solely by the course, given his decades-long history of screen use. The course provider had offered reasonable adjustments. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 analysis. While the section 75 requirements were met, Mr O failed to provide persuasive evidence that the course provider breached contract or made misrepresentations. Mr O's vision problems could not be attributed solely to the course given his decades-long history of screen use and eyesight adaptations. The course provider offered reasonable adjustments which Mr O did not accept. Without evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation, Conister had no liability under section 75. Additionally, Mr O has no automatic right to early loan cancellation without full repayment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website