Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim - misrepresentation and breach of contract complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S purchased an online coding course for £1,696 via his Lloyds credit card and claimed it was misrepresented as suitable for those without prior coding experience and completable in 4-6 months. He failed to complete the course within the required 12-month period to qualify for the promised job guarantee and sought a full refund from Lloyds under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Lloyds rejected the claim, finding no evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The ombudsman upheld Lloyds' decision, finding that Mr S provided no evidence of false statements by the course provider and that the tutor had provided reasonable support throughout the course. The ombudsman noted that even if the claim had succeeded, Mr S had already received a £700 gesture payment representing approximately 40% of the course cost.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Lloyds reasonably considered the dispute as a Section 75 CCA claim rather than a chargeback, given that services were delivered and quality was the issue. On misrepresentation, Mr S failed to provide evidence of false statements of fact by the course provider about course difficulty, completion time, or the job guarantee terms. The ombudsman found the 12-month requirement was communicated in the registration email. On breach of implied terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (reasonable care and skill), the evidence showed Mr S received tutor support including additional calls when he raised concerns, and continued engaging with the modules. The ombudsman found no evidence the course provider failed to provide reasonable care and skill or that Mr S was prevented from completing solely due to provider wrongdoing. The £700 payment was characterised as a gesture, not an admission of breach. The missed callback, while regrettable, did not affect the outcome as Mr S later spoke to Lloyds and the decision remained unchanged.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website