Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim - declined; alleged misrepresentation and breach of contract complaint against Bank of Scotland plc (trading as Halifax)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S paid a deposit for window and porch work at his daughter's property using his Halifax credit card. He later claimed the sales advisor had verbally agreed the porch would include a window opening and vents to comply with building regulations, but the signed contract and drawings showed no such features. When Mr S requested cancellation, the supplier quoted an 80% cancellation fee. Mr S asked Halifax to raise a Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim, which Halifax declined, initially arguing no valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship existed because the goods were for Mr S's daughter. The ombudsman found Halifax's initial reasoning was incorrect but upheld the claim's rejection because Mr S's unsupported verbal testimony contradicts the signed contract, and no documentary evidence (such as a surveyor's report) supports his allegation of breach of contract or misrepresentation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Halifax initially erred in denying a valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship existed (the cardholder does not need to physically receive goods), the available evidence does not support Mr S's claim of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The signed contract with detailed drawings showing no window openings or vents contradicts Mr S's verbal testimony that these features were agreed. Mr S signed the contract without raising concerns about the design. The ombudsman concluded that without documentary evidence (such as a qualified surveyor's report confirming building regulation non-compliance), Halifax acted reasonably in requiring further evidence before pursuing a Section 75 claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website