Not upheld: section 75 claim handling - alleged failure to properly assess breach of contract complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC (trading as Novuna Personal Finance)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G purchased replacement doors and windows for £12,000, paying £6,000 by deposit and financing £6,000 through a fixed sum loan with Novuna Personal Finance. When the supplier stopped trading and issues arose with the work, Mr G made a section 75 claim in January 2024. Novuna Personal Finance arranged an independent inspection which identified various remedial works, and the firm approved the claim for those works. Mr G disputed the inspection findings, claiming it missed a particular defect regarding glass panels with poor fitting and marking, but could not obtain further independent evidence to support this claim. The ombudsman found that Novuna Personal Finance's response was fair and reasonable and upheld the firm's decision not to approve additional remedial work beyond what the inspection recommended.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal test under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which requires proof of breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier for a claim to succeed. The ombudsman noted that an independent inspection had been arranged and a detailed report provided identifying specific remedial works. Novuna Personal Finance approved the claim for those works, which the ombudsman considered a fair and reasonable response. Regarding the additional defect Mr G claimed was missed, the ombudsman found that without further independent evidence to support this claim, it would not be fair or reasonable to require the firm to pay for additional remedial work beyond what the inspection recommended. The ombudsman emphasised that the absence of evidence from Mr G meant the claim could not be upheld.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website