Not upheld: section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim - rejection of claim for faulty building works complaint against Omni Capital Retail Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R purchased replacement windows for £15,392, funded partly by a loan from Omni Capital, but the initial installation was faulty and non-compliant with building regulations. During remedial work, rotten roof timbers were discovered, which the merchant argued were pre-existing structural issues unrelated to the window installation. Additionally, window shutters Mr R purchased after the initial installation no longer fitted following the remedial work. Mr R claimed under s.75 Consumer Credit Act for a full refund plus the cost of the shutters, but Omni rejected the claim. The ombudsman upheld Omni's decision, finding that the FENSA report supported the merchant's position that the roof timbers were a pre-existing structural issue for which the merchant bore no responsibility, and that the shutters, being purchased after the original agreement, were not covered by the contract.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test given incomplete and contradictory evidence. For s.75 to apply, there must be a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement (which existed) and a clear breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier. The FENSA report clearly stated the rotten roof timbers were a pre-existing structural issue that would have been the homeowner's responsibility, not caused by the window installation. The shutters were purchased after the original agreement was signed and therefore were not part of the contracted scope of work, so their non-fit could not constitute a breach of contract. The merchant's offer of £1,500 as a goodwill gesture for the shutters was considered fair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website