Partially upheld: Section 75 claim handling - goods quality and refund; claims handling delays complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D purchased a sofa and chairs using a fixed sum loan from Novuna in July 2024 and made a Section 75 claim after discovering defects. The retailer F attempted repairs on multiple occasions, and an independent inspection in January 2026 concluded there were no manufacturing faults remaining. The ombudsman found that while the sofa initially breached the implied term of satisfactory quality, Mr D could have rejected it after a failed repair but did not, and the sofa now conforms to contract. Novuna was not required to allow rejection or provide a refund, but was ordered to pay £200 compensation for causing delays in the claims handling process.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the sofa initially had manufacturing faults entitling F to attempt repairs under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the most recent independent inspection by C found no remaining faults. Mr D could have exercised his right to reject the sofa after the failed repair but did not do so. The onus was on Mr D to exercise his legal rights, not on F or Novuna to explain them. Since the sofa now conforms to contract following C's inspection, Novuna is not liable for a refund. However, Novuna caused delays in the claims handling process by not instructing an independent report sooner, warranting compensation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website