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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss F purchased a 30-hour driving course financed through a credit agreement with Payl8r. After completing 27 hours, she complained that the instructor took calls during lessons, demanded direct payment for additional lessons, and refused use of his car for her practical test. She alleged this conduct was unprofessional and coercive. The instructor disputed these claims, stating Miss F had failed a mock test and was not test-ready. Miss F subsequently hired an alternative car and passed her practical test with no faults. Payl8r offered a £135 refund for three unused hours but did not uphold her Section 75 claim. The ombudsman found the conflict between accounts could not be resolved without independent evidence, the instructor's actions fell within contractual terms, and Miss F's failure to follow the formal complaint process limited available evidence. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found a clear conflict between Miss F's account and the instructor's account with no independent evidence to support either version. The course terms explicitly permitted the instructor to refuse use of the car if driving did not meet the necessary standard, and this decision fell within the contractual scope. While Miss F passed her test with no faults in another car, this alone does not demonstrate the instructor's decision was unreasonable at the time, as instructors are entitled to make professional judgements. The ombudsman noted Miss F did not follow the contractual process for raising concerns, which further limited available evidence. Without sufficient evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation, Payl8r could not be held liable under Section 75.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website