Partially upheld: Irresponsible lending / Section 75 CCA breach of contract claim - failure to obtain mandatory building regulations certification complaint against National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (NatWest)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms K complained that NatWest wrongly declined her Section 75 CCA claim against builder B for breach of contract. Ms K and Mr K had engaged builder B to replace their main roof and garage roof for £6,500 plus £728 for guttering work. Ms K paid £5,500 for the main roof work but withheld the final £1,000 as the garage roof was not completed and the main roof was not signed off. The roof subsequently leaked, requiring emergency repairs. NatWest initially rejected the claim, arguing Ms K was not a contracting party. The ombudsman found Ms K was a joint contracting party because she made all payments using her credit card and Mr K's communications show he consulted with her on the work, establishing a valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship. The ombudsman found the builder breached the contract by failing to provide mandatory Building Regulations Compliance Certification for a roof replacement exceeding 25%, making NatWest liable under Section 75 CCA. The complaint was upheld in part, with NatWest directed to reimburse council inspection fees and cover costs of repeat performance or fault rectification depending on whether building regulations sign-off can be obtained.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that despite invoices being addressed solely to Mr K, Ms K was a joint contracting party because: (1) she made all payments using her credit card; (2) Mr K's messages show he consulted with 'the Mrs' (Ms K) on costs and proposed works; (3) the work directly benefited their jointly owned property; and (4) it is not unusual for one party to be the primary contact while both are parties to the contract. This established a valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship under Section 75 CCA. The ombudsman found a clear breach of contract because the builder failed to provide the mandatory BRCC for a roof replacement exceeding 25%, with severe consequences including preventing property sale and invalidating insurance. The ombudsman could not fairly determine liability for remedial costs already incurred without further invoices and information from Ms K, but directed NatWest to cover council inspection fees, repeat performance costs if sign-off cannot be obtained, and independent inspection and fault rectification costs if sign-off is obtained.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website