Not upheld: mis-selling - alleged lack of clarity regarding credit agreement terms and mid-term amendment charges complaint against Close Brothers Limited trading as Close Brothers Premium Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr J complained that a credit agreement with CBPF to finance an insurance policy was mis-sold because he was unaware he was entering into a regulated credit agreement and the terms were not clearly explained. He further complained that when he changed his vehicle in July 2025, resulting in an additional insurance premium being added to his credit agreement, he was not aware that mid-term amendments would increase his repayments. The ombudsman found that CBPF sent a prominent welcome letter identifying the credit agreement and provided electronically signed terms and conditions that clearly stated the credit facility could be used for multiple drawings to finance insurance policies and associated charges. The ombudsman concluded that CBPF acted fairly and within the terms and conditions when additional charges were added following the policy amendment, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the welcome letter prominently identified the credit agreement and requested Mr J to sign it, making it reasonable for Mr J to be aware he was entering into a credit agreement. The terms and conditions clearly stated that the credit facility could be used for multiple drawings to finance insurance policies and associated charges, with interest charged on each drawing. The ombudsman concluded that CBPF provided all necessary information before the agreement was entered into and acted within the terms and conditions when additional charges were added following the mid-term policy amendment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website