Not upheld: Section 75 claim - alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation complaint against Scott Consumer Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A purchased a £7,870 course through a fixed sum loan from SCF in February 2025. After the cooling off period expired, he disputed the course claiming it was misrepresented and that the supplier was not approachable. SCF declined his Section 75 claim, noting that the supplier had provided course materials, login details, and tutor contact information, and that Mr A had accessed the course multiple times. The ombudsman upheld SCF's decision, finding that Mr A failed to evidence misrepresentation or breach of contract. While the sales agent was no longer available, this did not constitute breach of contract, and subjective dissatisfaction with course quality does not support a Section 75 claim.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which requires Mr A to evidence either misrepresentation or breach of contract by the supplier. The onus was on Mr A to demonstrate that he was misled about the course or that E failed to deliver contractually obligated services. The evidence showed E provided all required course materials, access details, and tutor contact information. A course not meeting subjective expectations does not constitute misrepresentation. The departure of the sales agent does not amount to breach of contract as the agent was not the course tutor. Mr A failed to cancel within the 14-day cooling off period, after which all payments became due regardless of participation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website