Not upheld: handling of Section 75 claim; alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation complaint against SECURE TRUST BANK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY trading as V12 Retail Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased furniture financed through a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement with V12 in December 2024. He subsequently complained about delivery issues, missing installation service, and alleged the furniture was misrepresented as being made of Australian wood and marble when it was manufactured elsewhere. Mr M requested a refund and cancellation of the credit agreement. V12 declined his Section 75 claim, finding no evidence of breach of contract or misrepresentation. The ombudsman upheld V12's decision, finding that Mr M failed to provide persuasive evidence to support his claims and that the onus was on him to prove a valid claim. Website inconsistencies were irrelevant as the sale occurred in-store, and V12 reasonably requested independent inspection rather than accepting a photograph scan.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a valid misrepresentation claim, Mr M needed to prove: (1) a false statement of fact was made, and (2) it induced him to enter the contract. The ombudsman found Mr M failed to provide persuasive evidence that he was told the items originated from Australia or what materials they were actually made of. Website inconsistencies were irrelevant as the sale occurred in-store. For breach of contract, Mr M needed to prove the goods were faulty upon supply, which he did not. The installation service was a separate contract not financed by V12. The ombudsman concluded the onus was on Mr M to prove his claim, and V12 reasonably requested independent inspection rather than accepting a photograph scan.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website