Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Propensio Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5938164 of 2026-02-17T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Propensio Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5938164 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-02-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Propensio Finance Limited |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Propensio must: (1) cancel Ms S's loan agreement if still active and remove any adverse credit file information; (2) refund all repayments made by Ms S under the loan agreement; (3) apply 8% simple interest to refunds from the date each payment was made until settlement; (4) arrange and pay for the removal of the spray foam within a reasonable time period; (5) provide tax deduction certificate if required by HMRC. |
Summary
Ms S purchased spray foam insulation for £3,913.73 via a fixed sum loan from Propensio in July 2023. Following installation in October 2023, an inspection revealed serious defects including inadequate ventilation, excessive moisture in timber rafters, and blocked ventilation. The installer had failed to remove the existing floor-level fibreglass insulation while treating the installation as a 'warm roof', creating an improper 'hybrid roof' configuration. Propensio initially rejected the complaint based on broker advice. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the installation breached the implied term of reasonable care and skill under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as the BBA Agrément certificate explicitly prohibited the configuration used. Propensio was ordered to refund all payments with interest, cancel the loan, remove adverse credit information, and arrange removal of the spray foam at its cost.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 made Propensio equally liable for any breach of contract by the supplier V. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the installation must be performed with reasonable care and skill expected in the industry. The evidence showed that V installed the spray foam as a 'warm roof' installation (requiring minimal ventilation) but failed to remove the existing floor-level fibreglass insulation, thereby creating a 'hybrid roof' that required adequate ventilation. The BBA Agrément certificate explicitly states 'no insulation at horizontal ceiling level' for warm pitched roofs. The inspection report and videos confirmed inadequate ventilation and moisture problems. Therefore, the installation was not performed with reasonable care and skill. The appropriate remedy was a full price reduction (100% refund) rather than repeat performance, given the permanent ventilation deficiency and risk of timber rot.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Propensio Finance Limited, all decisions | 18 | 44% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,153 | 37% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,762 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website