Not upheld: Section 75 claim - alleged misrepresentation and unfair trading practices complaint against Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R paid £555 to emergency plumber P using his Virgin Money credit card for work to repair a boiler leak. Mr R complained that P's website advertised 'no call-out charge' but imposed a one-hour minimum labour charge, which he claimed was hidden on the website and constituted misrepresentation. He also alleged breaches of consumer protection regulations. Virgin Money declined his Section 75 claim. The ombudsman found that the minimum charge information was clearly accessible on P's website in the FAQ section, P had informed Mr R of the charge during the initial call, and the 'no call-out charge' statement was not factually incorrect as P performed actual work. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that P's website clearly displayed the one-hour minimum charge information in the FAQ section, which was reasonably accessible despite being in a sub-menu. The 'no call-out charge' statement was not factually incorrect because a call-out fee typically refers to a fee solely for attendance and assessment, whereas P performed actual work on the first visit. P had informed Mr R of the minimum charge during the initial phone call, and Mr R did not dispute this. Therefore, there was no misrepresentation or breach of consumer protection regulations by P, and Virgin Money acted fairly in declining the Section 75 claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website