Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim handling - scope of liability complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Barclaycard

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W paid £8,165.94 by bank transfer in July 2024 for a heat pump installation from supplier P, which was never completed due to P's failure to obtain required certifications and poor communication. In August 2025, Mr W paid £349.86 by Barclaycard credit card for radiator valves as an upgrade. When Mr W claimed a refund under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Barclaycard limited their liability to the £349.86 credit card transaction, treating it as a separate contract. Mr W argued the radiator valves were part of the original installation contract and should bring the entire £8,165.94 within Section 75 protection. The ombudsman upheld Barclaycard's position, finding that multiple factors (the supplier's own characterization as 'extra to quote', Mr W's acknowledgment it was not part of the original design, and the one-year gap between payments) reasonably supported treating the payments as separate contracts.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the legal position was not entirely clear, several factors supported treating the £349.86 as a separate contract: P themselves treated it as separate ('extra to quote'), Mr W acknowledged the valves were not part of the original design, there was a one-year gap between payments, and Mr W specifically asked for the charge to be added to the original invoice to gain Section 75 protection. These factors indicated the radiator valve purchase was a new transaction rather than a contractual variation of the original heat pump installation contract. Therefore, Barclaycard's interpretation that Section 75 liability extended only to the £349.86 transaction was reasonable and fair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website