Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against MBNA Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T purchased a used car using his MBNA credit card and discovered faulty seatbelts. After the dealer agreed to repair them, delays occurred due to manufacturer issues. Mr T claimed under Section 75 CCA and requested rejection of the car, but MBNA declined, stating the repair had been completed. The ombudsman found MBNA acted reasonably based on available information at the time and was not responsible for third-party delays. Although the dealer subsequently refunded Mr T in full plus £500 compensation, this does not require MBNA to change its original decision. The complaint is not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that MBNA was not responsible for delays between E and the manufacturer. MBNA reasonably acted on information provided by E at the time, even though it later proved inaccurate. The ombudsman could not fairly hold MBNA responsible for passing on information it did not know was wrong. Since the car had been repaired (as far as MBNA was aware), the breach of contract was resolved, and MBNA was not obliged to agree to rejection. The fact that E subsequently refunded Mr T does not mean MBNA should change its 2025 decision, as the refund appears to have been made outside the original claim process.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website