Veste

Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Shop Direct Finance Company Limited trading as Very

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6295133 of 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Shop Direct Finance Company Limited trading as Very. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6295133
Decision date2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00
FirmShop Direct Finance Company Limited trading as Very
ProductBuy-now-pay-later
Claim typeService failures generally
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr B purchased a PlayStation 5 using BNPL with a promotional code for 20% cashback that was accepted at checkout, but the discount was not applied because the item was not eligible for the promotion. Very explained that promotional codes are accepted at checkout regardless of product eligibility, and that customers must check the list of eligible items before proceeding. The ombudsman found that Very had made the eligible products list available and that the terms and conditions clearly placed the responsibility on the customer to verify eligibility. The complaint was not upheld as the ombudsman found no evidence that Very had acted unfairly or that the offer was misleading.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reviewed the terms and conditions which clearly stated that customers must check they are entitled to use a promotional code and that Very may process orders without applying benefits if the customer was not entitled to use the code. The ombudsman found that Very had made a list of eligible items available and the PlayStation 5 was not on that list. The ombudsman concluded that Very had not acted unfairly and that the terms and conditions made it clear that it was the customer's responsibility to verify eligibility before proceeding with the purchase.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Shop Direct Finance Company Limited trading as Very, all decisions138%
Service failures generally, all decisions34,19332%
Buy-now-pay-later, all decisions56929%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website