Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Raylo Group Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M disputed liability for a games console hire agreement, claiming he never received the goods. Raylo provided evidence including a courier photo showing delivery to the property, GPS tracking confirmation, and proof that the correct PIN code (sent only to Mr M's contact details) was entered to complete the delivery. Mr M denied providing the PIN code and suggested it could have been intercepted, but offered no credible explanation for how this occurred or how the courier photo showed his doorway. The ombudsman found Raylo's cumulative evidence persuasive and not_upheld the complaint, confirming Raylo was acting reasonably in holding Mr M liable for the hire agreement payments.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be delivered into the physical possession of the consumer or someone identified by the consumer. While acknowledging the difficulty in proving non-receipt, the ombudsman found Raylo's cumulative evidence persuasive: the correct PIN code was entered (which Mr M could not explain), GPS tracking confirmed the location, the courier photo matched Mr M's own photos of his doorway, and Mr M provided no credible explanation for how the PIN code could have been intercepted. The balance of evidence supported delivery to the address Mr M provided.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website