Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim - alleged breach of contract/faulty goods complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H purchased hearing aids for £3,350 in August 2024 using a fixed sum loan from Novuna and subsequently reported multiple issues including reduced hearing, poor sound quality, and feedback. He visited the retailer multiple times, and the retailer attributed the problems to maintenance issues and blocked filters rather than faults. Mr H requested a refund under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which Novuna declined. A third-party audiologist's report identified low-powered receivers (adjustable components) and damage to the left receiver, but concluded the issues were not due to the hearing aids not working. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence of an inherent fault present at the time of supply and upheld Novuna's decision to reject the refund claim.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

For a Section 75 CCA claim to succeed, Mr H must show not only that the hearing aids are faulty, but that the fault was present or developing when supplied in August 2024. The ombudsman found that both the retailer and third-party audiologist concluded the issues were caused by maintenance problems, usage, or adjustable/replaceable components rather than inherent defects. The receiver damage noted by the third-party was not previously reported and occurred considerable time after supply. Hearing aids are complex medical devices with replaceable parts subject to wear and tear. Neither expert found the hearing aids were unfit for purpose. Therefore, Novuna did not unfairly reject the claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website