Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Premium Credit Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss W complained to PCL about a Section 75 claim relating to a training course funded through a running account credit agreement. She sought a refund after being made redundant and facing family health issues, claiming breach of contract and misrepresentation regarding promised support and flexibility. PCL declined the claim, finding no breach of contract as Miss W had not cancelled within the required timeframe and that L had accommodated her circumstances. The ombudsman upheld PCL's decision, finding no evidence of cancellation within the 14-day cooling-off period, no contractual provision for extenuating circumstances, and that L had demonstrated willingness to assist Miss W through payment holidays, extensions and partial write-offs.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which requires establishment of either breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier for the creditor to be held jointly and severally liable. The ombudsman examined each of Miss W's complaints against the contract terms and found: (1) no evidence that cancellation was requested within the 14-day cooling-off period required for a full refund; (2) the contract terms do not provide for extenuating circumstances such as redundancy or family illness; (3) L promptly remedied the student card issue when raised; (4) L attempted to provide additional support as requested; (5) the finance repayments to PCL are separate from the course contract with L, so continued payments after cancellation requests were not unreasonable; (6) conflicting evidence regarding access blocking with no supporting evidence from Miss W; and (7) the circumstances did not constitute a supervening event frustrating the contract. The ombudsman acknowledged Miss W's difficult personal circumstances but concluded the contract terms did not provide for relief in such situations and L had shown willingness to accommodate her.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website