Not upheld: unfair contract terms, lack of transparency, inadequate disclosure of consumer rights complaint against ZILCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained about various aspects of his March 2024 credit agreement with Zilch Technology Limited, including alleged lack of clarity on fees, unfair contract variation terms, mandatory CPA requirements, insufficient highlighting of consumer rights, and excessive dispute resolution burdens. He sought £5,000 in compensation for financial loss, distress, and inconvenience. The ombudsman examined each complaint against the evidence and found that Zilch had acted fairly and reasonably: fees were clearly disclosed, contract variation terms were reasonable and compliant with FCA guidance, the CPA requirement was not unreasonable, consumer rights were sufficiently highlighted, and the dispute resolution process was normal. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the DISP 3.6.1 and 3.6.4 standards to determine what is fair and reasonable in all circumstances. For each of Mr M's six complaints, the ombudsman examined the evidence and found that: (1) fees were clearly set out in pre-agreement information and terms; (2) contract variation with 30 days' notice and the right to refuse changes is reasonable and consistent with FCA guidance; (3) requiring a CPA is not unreasonable as Mr M had the choice not to enter the agreement and can cancel the CPA; (4) electronic signature constitutes valid consent; (5) early repayment rights and withdrawal rights were sufficiently highlighted in multiple places; and (6) the dispute resolution process is normal and not excessive. Mr M failed to specify why he believed information lacked clarity or why processes were onerous, and he suffered no demonstrable loss.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website