Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim handling; goods not of satisfactory quality complaint against Glow Financial Services Limited (trading as Samsung (Glow))

Decision detail

Summary

Mr Y purchased a vacuum cleaner in May 2024 using a £150 fixed sum loan from Glow. In February 2025, the vacuum pole detached and became unusable. When the retailer declined to repair or replace it, attributing the failure to wear and tear or accidental damage, Mr Y requested Glow raise a Section 75 CCA claim. Glow declined, and Mr Y complained to the FOS. The ombudsman found Glow acted fairly in relying on the manufacturer's expert inspection report and concluded Mr Y had not provided sufficient evidence of a manufacturing defect or breach of contract to support the claim.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the requirements for a Section 75 claim were met, there was insufficient evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation. The ombudsman considered it reasonable for Glow to rely on S's expert inspection report as the manufacturer, which attributed the failure to wear and tear or accidental damage rather than a manufacturing defect. Although Mr Y provided evidence of similar issues in online forums, this was not sufficiently persuasive or independent to demonstrate the goods were not fit for purpose at the point of delivery. The burden was on Mr Y to provide evidence of breach of contract, which he failed to do.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website