Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Lloyds Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W booked a car hire through agent H for £261.55, to be collected on 1 August 2025 at 3.00pm from supplier D. Due to a flight delay, Mr W arrived at 4.42pm, well past the 59-minute hold period specified in the booking terms. The original vehicle was no longer available, and D offered a larger vehicle for an additional £290.40, which Mr W paid under protest, claiming economic duress. Mr W complained to Lloyds, claiming breach of contract and misrepresentation under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and requesting a chargeback. Lloyds declined both claims. The ombudsman upheld Lloyds' decision, finding that D acted in accordance with the contractual terms, which were clearly communicated at booking and which Mr W failed to comply with by not contacting D about his late arrival.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that D acted in accordance with the contractual terms agreed at booking. The booking form clearly stated D would hold the vehicle for only 59 minutes past the expected pickup time and that consumers must contact D if running late. Mr W did not arrive within 59 minutes of the scheduled time and did not contact D beforehand. While the flight delay was outside Mr W's control, this does not constitute a breach of contract or misrepresentation by D. The terms were transparent and Mr W agreed to them. Although Mr W felt pressured to pay the additional £290.40, this does not establish unfair commercial conduct under Section 75 or chargeback rules, which are narrow in scope. D provided the service Mr W paid for and did not mislead him about the terms or costs.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website