Upheld: Irresponsible lending and unfair handling of Section 75 claim complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6257254 of 2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00. Irresponsible lending and unfair handling of Section 75 claim complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6257254 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance |
| Product | fixed sum loan |
| Claim type | Irresponsible lending and unfair handling of Section 75 claim |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | 1. End the fixed sum loan agreement with nothing further to pay; 2. Refund all repayments including the £100 deposit from the start of the agreement to settlement date; 3. Add interest at 8% per annum simple to all refunded repayments from the date each payment was made to settlement date; 4. Remove any information about the fixed sum loan agreement from credit reference agencies; 5. Pay an additional £150 for distress and inconvenience (in addition to the £100 already paid in May 2025) |
Summary
Mr K complained about how Novuna handled his Section 75 claim regarding a fixed sum loan used to finance flooring from retailer X. Mr K claimed X delivered only part of his order with incorrect and damaged items that were never replaced. Novuna rejected the claim citing lack of goods description and the fact that X had gone into liquidation. The ombudsman found that Novuna failed to fairly handle the claim by overlooking Mr K's expression of dissatisfaction on 5 April 2024 and activating the loan despite knowing of problems with the supply. The ombudsman was persuaded that X breached the contract by failing to supply the flooring, based on Mr K's consistent testimony and photographs showing rooms without the ordered flooring. Novuna was ordered to end the loan agreement, refund all repayments with 8% interest, remove credit file information, and pay £150 additional compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Novuna failed to properly handle Mr K's Section 75 claim by overlooking his expression of dissatisfaction on 5 April 2024 and activating the loan despite knowing of problems with the supply. Although the Consumer Rights Act does not require a satisfaction note, Novuna's own processes requested one and they ignored Mr K's negative response. The ombudsman was persuaded by the evidence that X breached the contract by failing to supply the flooring, particularly given Mr K's consistent testimony, the photographs showing rooms without the ordered flooring, and Novuna's failure to obtain delivery records from X before they went into liquidation. The ombudsman rejected Novuna's suggestion that Mr K retained some flooring or provided unreliable information, finding his evidence clear, consistent and credible throughout.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance, all decisions | 59 | 20% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website