Upheld: section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim rejection - faulty goods complaint against SECURE TRUST BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6327613 of 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00. section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim rejection - faulty goods complaint against SECURE TRUST BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6327613 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | SECURE TRUST BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim rejection - faulty goods |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Secure Trust Bank must: (1) amend the agreement and remove the mattress, refunding the relevant proportion of sums paid or all sums if base is returned; (2) collect the mattress at no cost to Mrs L at a convenient time; (3) pay £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience; (4) pay £264 to cover the cost of the second inspection report. |
Summary
Mrs L purchased a mattress and bed frame for £3,500 funded by a fixed-term loan from Secure Trust Bank. The original mattress and its replacement both had significant dips and comfort issues, which Mrs L attributed to manufacturing defects. When Mrs L made a section 75 claim, Secure rejected it based on a first independent inspection concluding the mattress was satisfactory. Mrs L obtained a second independent inspection in March 2026 that concluded the mattress was faulty. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the second report more persuasive and comprehensive, and ordered Secure to remove the mattress from the agreement, refund relevant sums, arrange collection, and pay £100 compensation plus £264 for the inspection cost.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard given incomplete and contradictory evidence. Two independent expert reports reached different conclusions about the mattress quality. The ombudsman found the second report more persuasive because it was more comprehensive, recent, detailed the specific issues and manufacturing defect, and was conducted by a well-respected business with established testing methods. The ombudsman also considered Mrs L's credible testimony and the fact that she had accepted three of five mattresses as satisfactory, indicating this was not buyer's regret but a genuine quality issue. The mattress may have deteriorated between the two inspections (approximately four months apart).
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| SECURE TRUST BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, all decisions | 52 | 33% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,070 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website