Upheld: section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim - misrepresentation and breach of contract (hotel service failure) complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A booked an overseas hotel using his Santander credit card and encountered multiple problems including unavailable halal food despite prior assurance, poor accommodation condition, insects, alleged staff misconduct, theft from his room, food poisoning, and poorly maintained facilities. Santander initially offered 10% refund, which Mr A rejected. An FOS investigator recommended 30%, which Santander accepted, but Mr A sought 50%. The ombudsman upheld the complaint but rejected the 50% claim, finding the misrepresentation regarding halal food was a clear breach but determining 30% refund was fair given Mr A received and used the hotel facilities, and other issues either lacked supporting evidence or did not constitute contractual breaches.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement existed under section 75. While some issues raised by Mr A (theft, subjective service quality, swimming pool maintenance) did not constitute clear breaches of contract, the misrepresentation regarding halal food availability was a clear breach. The ombudsman considered that Mr A and his family did receive and use the hotel's facilities, so they should bear some cost. Balancing the confirmed misrepresentation, the decorative and hygiene issues, and the overall impact on the holiday against the fact that the holiday did take place, the ombudsman determined that 30% refund was fair and reasonable. The handling of the complaint by Santander was not found to be unfair based on the evidence initially provided.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website