Not upheld: non-delivery of goods / breach of contract / debt validity complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (trading as Barclays Partner Finance)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T purchased a phone for approximately £1,600 using a fixed sum loan from BPF. Upon delivery, Mr T claimed the phone was missing and replaced with a metal disk. R declined to provide a replacement or refund, and Mr T asked BPF to raise a claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. BPF investigated and concluded the phone was likely delivered based on weight checks, packaging integrity, and lack of evidence of tampering. The ombudsman found BPF's investigation reasonable and determined there was insufficient evidence to conclude the phone was not delivered. The ombudsman rejected arguments that BPF should have suspended collection or conducted a physical inspection, and found BPF complied with FCA Consumer Duty requirements. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard, acknowledging the evidence was incomplete and inconclusive. While it was possible the phone could have been removed at the warehouse or by the courier, the packaging showed no signs of tampering, weight checks were performed, and the courier reported no damage. The ombudsman concluded BPF reasonably determined it was more likely than not that the phone was inside the box when delivered. The ombudsman rejected the argument that BPF should have conducted a physical inspection, noting BPF lacked the facilities and expertise for forensic examination. Regarding CONC 7.14.1R, the ombudsman found the dispute did not fall within the valid grounds for suspension as the debt itself was not disputed, only the receipt of goods purchased with the loan. The ombudsman found BPF complied with the FCA Consumer Duty by investigating timely and keeping Mr T informed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website