Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C financed a fitted kitchen through a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement with Novuna and subsequently raised concerns about misleading documentation, installation quality, and goods quality. He claimed the entire project including installation should have been financed under the credit agreement and sought a refund. Novuna declined the claim, arguing that point of sale documentation clearly separated installation costs as third-party payments not covered by the finance agreement. The ombudsman upheld Novuna's position, finding the documentation sufficiently clear that installation was not financed, and deemed the supplier's offer of replacement parts and £1,500 compensation fair. The ombudsman upheld Novuna's £100 compensation for complaint handling delays but found no basis to require further action.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the point of sale documentation clearly separated installation costs as a third-party payment not financed by Novuna's credit agreement. Although the finance agreement used the term 'fitted kitchen', the detailed breakdown of costs made clear which services were financed and which were not. For a valid misrepresentation claim, Mr C would need to show false information induced him into the agreement, but the documentation supported Novuna's position that installation was not financed. Regarding the goods quality issues, the independent report confirmed only one item was not of satisfactory quality, and the supplier's offer to replace items and provide £1,500 compensation was a fair remedy under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The £100 compensation for complaint handling delays was appropriate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website