Not upheld: section 75 claim - defective goods and inadequate remedy complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs C purchased a fitted wardrobe for £7,600 using a Novuna loan, which developed multiple defects after installation in July 2024. After failed repair attempts, she invoked section 75 protection. Following negotiations, R offered a full refund while allowing Mrs C to keep the wardrobe, plus a French polisher visit to attempt repairs. Mrs C claimed this was a guarantee of showroom-standard finish, but the ombudsman found the agreement was only to attempt repairs. The ombudsman upheld Novuna's position that the remedy provided was fair and substantial, as Mrs C received a full refund while retaining a wardrobe with practical value, which exceeded typical remedies for defective goods.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Novuna could have been clearer in communication, the evidence from the phone call between Mrs C and R showed the agreement was to attempt to bring the wardrobe to showroom standard, not to guarantee that outcome. The phrase 'do what he can do' indicated an attempt rather than a promise. The remedy provided—a full refund while keeping a wardrobe with some practical value—was substantial and fair, as it exceeded what would typically be expected (either rejection with return or a price reduction reflecting reduced value). No separate loss of significant value was demonstrated to warrant further remedy.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website