Not upheld: Section 75 claim handling and investigation process complaint against SECURE TRUST BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY trading as V12 Retail Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased a sofa using a V12 fixed sum loan and raised a Section 75 claim after discovering a fault upon delivery. V12 rejected the claim based on D's initial inspection finding no fault. Subsequently, D's second inspection found a fault was present at delivery, and D provided a refund. Although Mr M was satisfied with the eventual outcome, he complained about V12's handling of the claim, arguing V12 relied too heavily on D's evidence and should have sought independent inspection. The ombudsman found V12 acted fairly and reasonably given the evidence available at each stage and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that V12 had insufficient evidence to challenge D's initial position when the claim was first raised, as the inspector's opinion that cushion movement would settle was not obviously incorrect at that time. When new evidence emerged in October 2025 showing a fault, V12 appropriately did not immediately change the outcome since D was already arranging a refund. The ombudsman concluded that even if V12 had challenged D's position earlier, it would not have resulted in a quicker resolution given the nature of the initial dispute.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website