Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Ikano Bank AB (publ)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5954568 of 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Ikano Bank AB (publ). Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5954568 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Ikano Bank AB (publ) |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Ikano Bank AB (publ) must: (1) Refund all payments Ms S made under the loan agreement (fully repaid April 2025); (2) Apply 8% simple interest to refunds from date each payment was made until settlement, with tax deduction certificate if required; (3) Arrange removal of spray foam at no cost to Ms S within reasonable timeframe. |
Summary
Ms S purchased spray foam insulation for £4,585 via a fixed sum loan from Ikano after being contacted by installer T in February 2019. T's representative allegedly told Ms S her loft had alarmingly high moisture readings and needed spray foam to prevent future damage. Ms S later discovered her three-year-old new build property already had adequate insulation and the spray foam had not reduced energy bills as promised. When Ms S raised a s.75 claim, Ikano rejected it. The ombudsman found that T, not Ms S, initiated contact through cold calling and made false statements about moisture levels (the recorded reading was 14%, within normal range). These misrepresentations induced Ms S into the contract, making Ikano liable under s.75 CCA. The complaint was upheld and Ikano was ordered to refund all payments with 8% interest and arrange removal of the spray foam at no cost.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found on balance of probabilities that T, not Ms S, initiated contact through cold calling. This was supported by: Ms S' consistent testimony; the implausibility of a new build homeowner independently seeking spray foam installation; T's inability to evidence Ms S' contact due to system migration; T's failure to correct Ms S when she mentioned being first contacted in 2019; and consumer reviews and ombudsman research indicating T does cold call. The ombudsman concluded that Ms S was told the moisture readings were alarmingly high and that spray foam was needed to prevent future damage. However, the recorded 14% reading is within normal range, meaning T's representative made false statements of fact. These misrepresentations induced Ms S into a contract she would not otherwise have entered, making Ikano liable under s.75 CCA. The remedy is to unwind the contract by refunding all payments with interest and arranging removal of the spray foam.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Ikano Bank AB (publ), all decisions | 399 | 48% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,913 | 36% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,885 | 29% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website