Not upheld: Section 75 claim - breach of contract and misrepresentation in relation to dental treatment complaint against Healthcare Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs T borrowed approximately £2,200 from HFL in May 2023 to fund dental aligner treatment. She discontinued treatment after the 8th aligner, citing pain and ineffectiveness, and requested a full refund. HFL declined, noting Mrs T had not attended all required appointments and had not adhered to the treatment plan, and that she had signed a consent form disclaiming guarantees. Mrs T complained to the FOS over two years later. The ombudsman found HFL's decision fair because Mrs T provided insufficient evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation, the signed consent form clearly outlined risks and lack of guarantees, and conflicting accounts between the parties meant HFL was entitled to require more supporting evidence before upholding the claim.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that HFL faced conflicting accounts from Mrs T and the supplier regarding treatment compliance and support. Without independent expert evidence demonstrating breach of implied terms (reasonable care and skill), HFL was not unreasonable in declining to uphold the claim. The signed consent form clearly outlined risks, lack of guarantees, and Mrs T's opportunity to ask questions, making misrepresentation difficult to establish. The significant time delay between treatment (May 2023) and complaint (over 2 years later) and lack of supporting documentation further supported HFL's position. The ombudsman distinguished between dissatisfaction with results and breach of contract, finding Mrs T had not provided sufficient evidence of the latter.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website