Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K financed the purchase of jewellery through a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement with Novuna and claimed he did not receive the item despite the courier providing photographic evidence of delivery to the correct address. Novuna declined to refund or cancel the agreement, relying on the courier's evidence showing successful delivery to the correct door number with a signature. Mr K argued the photograph was not of his actual front door, as multiple identical tower blocks in his area shared the same door number. The ombudsman found Novuna acted fairly in requiring more persuasive evidence of non-delivery before accepting liability and rejected Mr K's argument that Novuna should follow his bank's refund decision. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that Novuna acted fairly in relying on the courier's photographic evidence showing delivery to the correct address with a signature, even though Mr K disputed this. The ombudsman found it reasonable for Novuna to conclude the item was delivered to the correct location and accepted by someone Mr K had enabled to take possession. The ombudsman noted the contract did not require identification verification or Mr K's personal signature, and that Novuna fairly requested more persuasive evidence of non-delivery before accepting liability. The ombudsman rejected the argument that Novuna should follow the bank's refund decision, noting this could have been made for various reasons unrelated to delivery failure.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website