Not upheld: misrepresentation and breach of contract under section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint against Premium Credit Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs A purchased a £4,500 training course funded by a PCL loan, believing it was suitable for beginners with no experience. After finding the course challenging, she claimed in May 2025 that the course had been misrepresented and requested a refund. PCL rejected her section 75 claim after contacting the provider. The ombudsman found that the provider's statement about suitability for beginners was an opinion rather than a factual misrepresentation, and that Mrs A had accessed course material before seeking cancellation, which was excluded under the contract's cooling-off period. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal test for misrepresentation under common law and the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The provider's statement that 'no prior IT experience is required' was characterized as an opinion rather than a guarantee of success, not a statement of fact. The exam body's recommendation of two years' experience was for exam preparation, not course commencement. The evidence from the alternative university provider was not material as it was not presented to PCL and the courses were not comparable. PCL's decision to decline the claim was fair given the evidence available to it.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website