Not upheld: mis-selling, misrepresentation, and unfair contract terms under Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint against Conister Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5966484 of 2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00. mis-selling, misrepresentation, and unfair contract terms under Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint against Conister Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5966484 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Conister Bank Limited |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | mis-selling, misrepresentation, and unfair contract terms under Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman reminded Conister Bank Limited of its obligations to treat Miss T fairly if her circumstances change or she needs support with the loan agreement. |
Summary
Miss T took out a fixed sum loan of £3,000 with Conister Bank Limited to pay for an online course costing around £4,000. She later complained that the course was mis-sold and misrepresented, claiming it was unsuitable for beginners, required more study hours than stated, would take longer than 6 months to complete, and didn't lead to the promised job opportunities with £50,000+ salaries. She asked Conister Bank Limited to end the loan agreement under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The ombudsman found that the sales call and webinar recordings showed the course terms were clearly communicated without guarantees, Miss T actively engaged in the purchase, the interest rate was explained, and she failed to provide evidence of false statements of fact. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Conister Bank Limited fairly rejected Miss T's Section 75 claim because: (1) there was no evidence of unreasonable pressure - Miss T actively engaged with the sale after attending the webinar, asked questions which were answered, and was provided time to digest information; (2) the course completion time of 6-9 months was clearly communicated without guarantees, and Miss T provided no evidence she couldn't complete it in that timeframe; (3) the interest rate of 20% was clearly explained as reflecting her unemployed status, which Miss T acknowledged understanding; (4) Miss T did not validly exercise her right to withdraw from the finance agreement or cancel the course within 14 days; (5) there was no evidence of misrepresentation - the webinar presented statistics about salary ranges but Miss T failed to demonstrate these statements were false; and (6) Miss T's disappointment with the course outcome does not constitute misrepresentation.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Conister Bank Limited, all decisions | 21 | 29% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,070 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website