Partially upheld: section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim - alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation in supply of spray foam insulation services; unreasonable delay in claim handling complaint against Ikano Bank AB (publ)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6029367 of 2026-04-24T00:00:00+00:00. section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim - alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation in supply of spray foam insulation services; unreasonable delay in claim handling complaint against Ikano Bank AB (publ). Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6029367 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-24T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Ikano Bank AB (publ) |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim - alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation in supply of spray foam insulation services; unreasonable delay in claim handling |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Ikano Bank AB (publ) to pay Mr G £200 for inconvenience caused by unreasonable delay in handling the s75 claim. |
Summary
Mr G financed spray foam insulation installation through a fixed sum loan with Ikano in September 2020 and subsequently claimed under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, alleging the supplier misrepresented the product's benefits and breached the contract by failing to install a vapour control layer and poor workmanship. An independent RICS-accredited surveyor's report identified installation defects including sealed eaves, lack of vapour control layer, and elevated moisture readings. Ikano rejected the s75 claim in April 2025, arguing there was insufficient evidence of actual damage or breach. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding that while Ikano reasonably rejected the substantive s75 claim due to lack of evidence of actual harm despite identified defects, Ikano unreasonably delayed providing their response and should pay £200 compensation for this inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while the second surveyor's report identified installation issues, there was insufficient evidence that C breached the contract or made misrepresentations. Specifically: (1) claims about heating cost reduction and property value increase could not be substantiated as misrepresentations; (2) remortgaging concerns were not an active consideration in 2020 and C could not have reasonably foreseen mortgage lending issues at that time; (3) despite the report identifying lack of vapour control layer and sealed eaves, there was no actual evidence of damp, decay, or structural damage in the roof; (4) the company removing the spray foam reported extremely low moisture levels; (5) the non-invasive nature of the inspection meant potential issues were not fully investigated. However, Ikano unreasonably delayed providing their response despite having the necessary evidence by October 2024.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Ikano Bank AB (publ), all decisions | 397 | 48% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,070 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website