Not upheld: misrepresentation regarding credit agreement and GAP insurance policy complaint against Premium Credit Limited

Decision detail

Summary

X complained that Premium Credit Limited misrepresented a credit agreement taken out in September 2016, claiming he was told it was compulsory to purchase a GAP insurance policy when he did not want it. X raised the complaint in July 2025, approximately nine years later. Neither party could produce the original credit agreement due to the passage of time, and the broker confirmed they did not sell the GAP insurance policy. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence to establish misrepresentation and did not uphold the complaint, noting the lack of information about the product, sales journey, and PCL's responsibility for the sale.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while it was likely X did take out an agreement with PCL, there was insufficient evidence to determine what product the agreement related to, how it was sold to X, or whether PCL was responsible for the sale. The broker confirmed they did not sell the GAP insurance policy, and without the original credit agreement or clear evidence of the sales journey, the ombudsman could not conclude that PCL made a misrepresentation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website