Veste

Not upheld: service failure, loan agreement execution irregularity, online account access complaint against CREATION CONSUMER FINANCE LIMITED

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6342154 of 2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00. service failure, loan agreement execution irregularity, online account access complaint against CREATION CONSUMER FINANCE LIMITED. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6342154
Decision date2026-06-04T00:00:00+00:00
FirmCREATION CONSUMER FINANCE LIMITED
ProductPersonal loan
Claim typeservice failure, loan agreement execution irregularity, online account access
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo remedy ordered. The ombudsman stated that where no wrongdoing by Creation was found, no action could be ordered to put things right.

Summary

Mr O complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service about Creation Consumer Finance Limited regarding a kitchen purchase financed through a loan agreement. His main concerns were: inability to access his online account after entering the agreement due to an incorrect phone number provided by W; and discovery that the loan agreement bore a signature date of 18 February 2025 (signed by a W representative) rather than 1 February 2025 (when Mr O attempted to sign it himself). The ombudsman found that Creation was not responsible for the online access issues as they resulted from information provided by W, and that Creation had taken sufficient preventative steps by providing clear warnings to W's representatives that they must not sign agreements on the customer's behalf. The ombudsman concluded that Mr O had not suffered detriment as the agreement terms remained unchanged and his withdrawal rights were actually extended. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Creation was not responsible for the online access issues as they resulted from an incorrect phone number provided by W, which Creation reasonably accepted at face value. Regarding the loan agreement signature, the ombudsman determined that Creation had taken sufficient preventative steps by providing clear warnings to W's representatives that they must not sign on the customer's behalf. Creation was not unreasonable in accepting the signature at face value given these warnings, and there was no way for Creation to know the signature was not Mr O's. Following notification of the issue, Creation made appropriate enquiries with W. The ombudsman found Mr O had not suffered detriment as the agreement terms were unchanged and his withdrawal rights were actually extended rather than compromised.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
CREATION CONSUMER FINANCE LIMITED, all decisions5817%
Personal loan, all decisions22,07030%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website