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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B financed a £20,000 kitchen installation through a fixed sum loan with Novuna in October 2024. Following delivery and installation, he identified multiple defects including measurement discrepancies, missing components, and incomplete works. The supplier M offered remedial repairs and refunds totalling approximately £1,500-£2,000 in August 2025, but Mr B rejected this and demanded a full refund and removal of the kitchen. Mr B referred the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The ombudsman found that while a breach of contract existed, the supplier's remedial offers were reasonable and proportionate under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the supplier had not been given adequate opportunity to complete the repairs before the consumer demanded rejection of the goods.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while there was a breach of contract regarding the quality of goods and services, the supplier had offered reasonable remedies under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including repeat performance through repairs, refunds for services not provided, and contributions towards costs. The ombudsman applied the principle that under the Consumer Rights Act, the primary remedy for services not carried out with reasonable care and skill is repeat performance where possible and reasonable, with price reduction as a secondary remedy. The ombudsman concluded that the supplier had not been given a reasonable opportunity to complete the proposed remedial works before the consumer requested a full refund, and that loss of confidence alone does not automatically remove the supplier's opportunity to rectify defects. The ombudsman also noted that where parties are jointly and severally liable, consumers are expected to take reasonable steps to minimise losses and accept reasonable proposals to resolve matters.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website