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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P purchased a bathroom suite for his elderly father using a fixed sum loan from Novuna and paid the remainder with a credit card. He subsequently complained about multiple quality and installation issues, requesting a full refund. The merchant W declined the refund and exercised its right to repair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. An assessment report confirmed some installation defects (toilet not level, towel radiator upside down, incorrect flush plate, damaged handrail) but found the basin delamination was caused by water ingress from a third party's installation. The ombudsman found that Novuna acted fairly in accepting the merchant's offer to repair these four defects as a reasonable remedy under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and rejected Mr P's claims for full refund or price reduction.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Novuna, as a finance provider, could only be held liable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act if the merchant had committed a misrepresentation or breach of contract. While the merchant's installation work breached the implied term of reasonable care and skill (evidenced by the manager's report), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides the merchant with a right to repair and repeat performance. The ombudsman concluded that the merchant's offer to repair the four identified defects (toilet levelling, towel radiator reinstallation, correct flush plate installation, and handrail replacement) was a fair and reasonable remedy. The ombudsman rejected Mr P's arguments for a full refund or price reduction, finding no breach regarding the delayed start date (which was stated as an estimate) or VAT exemption (which requires completion of a form after works are signed off). The delamination issue was caused by water ingress from a shower seat not installed by the merchant, so the merchant was not responsible. The ombudsman noted that Mr P's quotes were for full bathroom replacement rather than the limited repairs needed, and that Mr P had not obtained an independent assessment despite having the opportunity to do so.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website