Not upheld: Section 75 claim handling - alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation regarding medical treatment complaint against Omni Capital Retail Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that OC unreasonably declined his Section 75 claim regarding hair transplant treatment he financed in October 2020. Mr M alleged the supplier breached contract and misrepresented Dr A's involvement, expecting him to perform the entire procedure when another doctor also participated. The ombudsman found OC acted reasonably in declining the claim because Mr M provided insufficient persuasive evidence that the procedure lacked reasonable care and skill, did not raise concerns immediately after treatment, and failed to demonstrate material detriment. While the supplier's website statement about 'one patient per day' was ambiguous, the ombudsman concluded this complex claim required more persuasive evidence to rebut the supplier's defence, and OC's handling was not unfair or unreasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that without persuasive expert evidence showing the procedure was carried out without reasonable care and skill, OC could not fairly conclude there was a breach of contract. Regarding misrepresentation about Dr A's involvement, while the website statement was ambiguous, there was insufficient evidence that Mr M raised concerns soon after treatment or that the manner of treatment caused material loss. The ombudsman noted this was a complex claim brought significantly after treatment, requiring more persuasive evidence from Mr M to rebut the supplier's defence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website