Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Payment Assist Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D purchased a registration number in March 2024 using a fixed sum loan from Payment Assist. The V778 retention certificate expired in May 2025 after approximately 13 months, and Mr D lost the ability to renew it because he did not take action within the DVLA's 28-day renewal window. Mr D claimed the merchant misrepresented the registration as having a two-year retention period and that Payment Assist unfairly rejected his Section 75 CCA claim. The ombudsman found that the merchant's terms clearly stated Mr D was responsible for renewal, the expiration date was documented in writing, and Mr D's failure to renew was due to his changed circumstances rather than merchant wrongdoing. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which allows a borrower to make a claim against the credit provider for breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier. The ombudsman found that Mr D received the entitlement to the registration number he paid for, as evidenced by the V778 certificate naming him as nominee. The merchant's terms clearly stated Mr D was responsible for renewal within the DVLA's 28-day window. The ombudsman found no evidence of misrepresentation, as Mr D was provided with written documentation showing the expiration date in 2025, which contradicted his claim of being told two years. The ombudsman concluded that Mr D's failure to renew was due to his changed circumstances, not merchant wrongdoing, and that Payment Assist reasonably relied on the merchant's explanation of the contract terms.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website