Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Propensio Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs F took out a fixed sum loan with Propensio to fund thermal wall coating work by supplier X. After completion, Mrs F discovered paint splashes on her patio, windows and post box, and alleged the coating was patchy. She raised a Section 75 claim in March 2024, but Propensio did not provide their review until July 2024, four months later. The ombudsman found that while the photographs did not clearly prove the wall coating was defective, they did show paint damage caused by X's lack of care. Propensio's delay in handling the claim was unjustified, as they had all necessary information by May 2024 and could have arranged independent assessment. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and required Propensio to pay £300 for paint removal costs and £100 for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the photographs did not clearly demonstrate that the wall coating was patchy or of poor quality, the images did show paint splashes on the patio, windows and post box that matched the colour of X's product and were provided shortly after completion. This constituted a breach of the implied term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that services must be performed with reasonable care and skill. Propensio failed to handle the Section 75 claim promptly, taking four months to provide their review despite having all necessary information by May 2024. The ombudsman found Propensio could have arranged for an independent assessment or alternative contractor when the parties reached an impasse, rather than blaming Mrs F for preventing X from attending.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website