Not upheld: Complaint handling and claim management; Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim handling complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained about how Novuna handled his request to end a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement for furniture, claiming the non-cancellable and non-refundable terms were not disclosed during the sale. Mr L made a Section 75 claim for misrepresentation, which Novuna initially declined but later reconsidered after Mr L provided further evidence. Novuna gathered additional information from the supplier before reaching its decision, and ultimately cancelled the credit agreement and Mr L received his deposit refund. The ombudsman found that Novuna dealt with the claim fairly and without unreasonable delay, and that Mr L achieved his desired outcome, so the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Novuna dealt with the claim quickly (approximately one and a half months) and fairly. While Novuna initially declined the claim, it reconsidered and gathered further information, which was not unreasonable. The ombudsman noted that Mr L ultimately achieved his desired outcome (deposit refund and credit agreement cancellation), placing him in the same position as if the Section 75 claim had been upheld. The ombudsman was satisfied that Novuna did not cause unreasonable delay and acted appropriately in testing the evidence provided before reaching a decision.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website