Not upheld: section 75 claim - alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract by goods/services supplier complaint against Scott Consumer Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P borrowed £7,790 from SCF in April 2024 to fund an electrical training course with provider E. After attempting to cancel outside the 14-day cooling-off period, Mr P later claimed in August 2025 that he was a victim of fraud and that the course was misrepresented. SCF declined his refund request, finding no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. The ombudsman upheld SCF's decision, finding that while Mr P met the technical requirements for a Section 75 claim, the evidence did not support allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or breach of contract. The sales meeting transcript showed detailed discussions about the course, and Mr P's completion of nine modules with a passed assessment in July 2025 indicated E was providing support as promised.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the requirements for a Section 75 claim were met, Mr P failed to provide persuasive evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or breach of contract. The transcript of the sales meeting showed detailed discussions about the course structure and practical training requirements. The evidence that Mr P completed nine modules and passed assessments in July 2025 suggested E was providing support and guidance. There was no evidence that E had declined to provide access to practical training; rather, Mr P needed to contact E to arrange centre attendance. The ombudsman concluded SCF reasonably found insufficient evidence to support Mr P's claims and acted fairly in declining the refund request.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website