Not upheld: handling of Section 75 claim and chargeback request; alleged breaches of contract and misrepresentation by supplier complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P purchased bathroom goods and installation services, making partial payment via Tesco credit card and financing the remainder through another creditor. He subsequently complained of multiple issues including installation delays, incorrect flush panel, heating element problems, and later cabinet delamination. Mr P sought refunds and compensation through both Tesco and the other creditor. Tesco declined to pursue a chargeback but considered a Section 75 claim, ultimately deeming the supplier's remedies (repeat performance and replacement) suitable and finding insufficient evidence for other claims. The ombudsman upheld Tesco's handling of the claim, finding it reasonably assessed each alleged breach under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and that the remedies offered were fair, though noting the supplier later offered to replace the flush panel as originally ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to assess whether Tesco treated Mr P fairly. For the chargeback, Tesco reasonably declined to attempt one given the complexity of the dispute and that Mr P received the goods and services. For the Section 75 claim, the ombudsman found that Tesco properly assessed each alleged breach: the towel heater issue had a suitable remedy (repeat performance), the tile damage lacked evidence, the one-day delay lacked contractual entitlement to refund, the cabinet delamination occurred too long after supply to presume it was faulty on delivery, and the flush panel issue was remedied by the supplier's later offer to replace it. The ombudsman found Tesco's request for an independent report reasonable given the complexity and timing of the delamination claim. Regarding customer service, waiting for firm N's response was reasonable given joint liability, and the £50 compensation for delayed follow-up was fair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website