Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Propensio Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6054944 of 2026-01-07T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Propensio Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6054944 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-01-07T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Propensio Finance Limited |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | PF directed to: (1) carry out recommendations detailed in Report B using a structural engineer to oversee plans and building regulation approvals; (2) pay Miss A £640 compensation on completion of remedial work; (3) amend Miss A's credit file to remove adverse information relating to missed payments caused by withholding payment due to this dispute. |
Summary
Miss A obtained a fixed sum loan from PF to fund window installation work. Dissatisfied with the installation quality and structural damage, she made a Section 75 claim in July 2024 and ceased loan repayment. PF declined the claim based on supplier inspections. After escalation to FOS, expert reports (particularly Report B in July 2025) confirmed the installation was improperly performed and caused structural damage requiring extensive remedial works. PF then offered to fund remedial works and pay £640 compensation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, directing PF to carry out the remedial works, pay the compensation, and remove adverse credit file information relating to the missed payments, finding it fair given Miss A's disclosed personal circumstances and PF's failure to explain the credit file impact.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that PF's initial claim handling was not unreasonable given the information available at the time. The supplier's detailed inspection reports, while later contradicted by expert evidence, provided a reasonable basis for PF to decline the claim without independent expert input. However, once Report B provided persuasive evidence of improper installation causing damage, PF's offer to carry out remedial works was fair. The ombudsman also found it fair to remove adverse credit file information because: (1) Miss A informed PF of difficult personal circumstances when making the claim; (2) PF should have explained the credit file impact and that continuing to pay does not affect her right to dispute; and (3) knowing what is now known about the installation quality, it is fair to treat the missed payments as dispute-related rather than true arrears.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Propensio Finance Limited, all decisions | 18 | 44% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,153 | 37% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,762 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website