Not upheld: section 75 claim - alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation regarding package holiday complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H paid over £4,000 for a package holiday using his HSBC credit card and claimed the hotel was misrepresented as a 'brand new, 5-star luxury, adults-only' establishment when it was actually established in 2019, had cleanliness and maintenance issues, and allowed guests aged 16-17 despite advertising as 'designed for adults'. He made a section 75 claim against HSBC, which declined it. The ombudsman found that Mr H's evidence was primarily subjective and that he failed to raise concerns during the holiday when they could have been remedied. The ombudsman upheld HSBC's decision, finding insufficient objective evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation and noting that section 75 requires legal substantiation rather than unmet subjective expectations.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while some cleanliness issues were evident in photographs, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the overall service fell below a reasonable standard. The ombudsman noted that cleanliness must be to a reasonable standard rather than perfection, and that Mr H's failure to raise concerns during the holiday prevented the supplier from addressing issues. The description of the hotel as 'new' was deemed subjective, and the 'designed for adults' description with a 16+ age restriction was not found to constitute misrepresentation as different hotels have different age policies. The ombudsman emphasised that section 75 requires objective evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation, not merely subjective expectations not being met.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website