Not upheld: section 75 claim handling - breach of contract and misrepresentation complaint against Omni Capital Retail Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P obtained a fixed sum loan from Omni in November 2017 to pay for spray foam insulation installation at his home. In July 2025, after obtaining an independent report identifying defects in the installation, Mr P raised a section 75 claim against Omni alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation by the supplier. Omni declined the claim, and Mr P referred the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. The ombudsman found the claim was brought outside the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980, as the causes of action accrued in November 2017 when the installation occurred. The ombudsman concluded that Omni was fair to reject the claim and that no applicable exceptions to the limitation period applied. The ombudsman also noted that even if the claim had been timely, there was insufficient evidence to establish breach of contract or misrepresentation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the section 75 claim was brought outside the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980. The causes of action for both breach of contract and misrepresentation accrued in November 2017 when the contract was entered into and the installation occurred. The claim was not raised until July 2025, exceeding the limitation period by approximately one year. While the ombudsman acknowledged that Mr P may not have known of the problem until later, the law does not extend the limitation period in these circumstances. Section 14A of the Limitation Act (which applies to negligence claims where facts are unknown) does not apply to breach of contract claims under section 75. The ombudsman also found insufficient evidence of negligent misstatement or fraud/concealment to invoke section 32 postponement provisions. Additionally, even if the claim had been brought in time, there was insufficient evidence to establish breach of contract or misrepresentation, as the report was inconclusive and the spray foam had been removed, making it difficult to establish whether installation defects existed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website