Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P purchased a car in August 2025, paying £1,000 via HSBC credit card. In October 2025, he reported air conditioning issues and the car was subsequently stolen. Mr P claimed the car was misrepresented as having 'impeccable security' and 'Bluelink support', and requested HSBC raise a Section 75 claim. HSBC declined the claim, and Mr P complained to the FOS. The ombudsman found that Mr P provided insufficient evidence to support claims of misrepresentation or breach of contract, including no independent inspection report for the air conditioning fault and only video footage of the theft. The ombudsman upheld HSBC's decision to decline the claim and found that a chargeback would also have been unlikely to succeed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that HSBC was reasonable in declining the Section 75 claim because Mr P failed to provide persuasive evidence of either misrepresentation or breach of contract. Regarding misrepresentation, the video evidence alone was insufficient to prove the car lacked 'impeccable security', and the Bluelink system was actually available on the car model. Regarding breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, there was insufficient evidence that the air conditioning fault existed at the point of sale, as no independent inspection report or fault diagnosis was provided. The warranty terms did not prevent Mr P from driving the car to a garage for repair. A chargeback would also have been unlikely to succeed as it could only cover the £1,000 deposit, not the full purchase price, and the same lack of evidence would apply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website