Not upheld: Section 75 claim handling - alleged misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding holiday accommodation complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G booked a villa through direct contact with a supplier after seeing it advertised online, paying approximately £8,070 for accommodation for 16 people over 13 nights. Upon arrival, Mr G discovered the villa had fewer bathrooms than advertised (2.5 instead of 5.5), amenities were unavailable, and various facilities malfunctioned during the stay. Mr G claimed under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a full refund, but Halifax offered a partial refund of £1,344.50 representing approximately 50% of Mr G's proportionate share. The ombudsman found Halifax's offer fair because Mr G booked directly with the supplier (not through the advertising platform), the group used the villa for the full duration, and a price reduction rather than full refund was appropriate under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while there were discrepancies between advertised and actual facilities, there were complications in establishing a clear misrepresentation because Mr G booked directly with V rather than through platform B, and the invoice did not confirm the same representations as the platform advertisement. The ombudsman considered that Mr G and the group used the villa and most facilities for the full duration, so a full refund would be unfair. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a price reduction remedy was appropriate. The ombudsman found Halifax's approach to limiting assessment to Mr G's proportionate share reasonable given uncertainty about whether Mr G had authority to contract on behalf of the entire group. The partial refund of approximately 16% was deemed fair compensation for the service defects experienced.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website