Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim and chargeback - alleged unauthorised service and temporary seatbelt fitting complaint against Tesco Personal Finance Limited trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Miss T complained that Tesco Bank wrongly rejected her Section 75 claim and chargeback request regarding car repairs at a local garage. She claimed she did not authorise a temporary seatbelt fitting or the full service, having only requested a MOT. The garage had fitted a temporary seatbelt to allow the car to pass its failed MOT while sourcing the correct replacement. The ombudsman found that Miss T implicitly wanted her car to pass the MOT and be roadworthy, which the garage achieved through necessary repairs at no extra charge for the temporary belt. Finding no evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract, the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Miss T claimed she only authorised a MOT, it was implicit from the evidence that she wanted the car to pass its MOT and be roadworthy. The garage provided necessary repairs to achieve this and made no extra charge for the temporary seatbelt, appearing to act helpfully to keep Miss T mobile. There was no evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The garage delivered what Miss T implicitly required - a car that could pass its MOT and be driven. The issues regarding cash payment requests and invoice delays were not sufficient to uphold the complaint.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website