Not upheld: Section 75 claim handling - alleged breach of contract for faulty goods complaint against Glow Financial Services Limited trading as Samsung Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R purchased a device via a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement with Samsung Finance in December 2024 for approximately £400. The device developed charging issues within one month and was sent to the manufacturer for repair in February 2025, where warranty repair was declined due to physical damage. Samsung Finance declined Mr R's Section 75 claim based on manufacturer inspection reports showing the damage was caused after supply. The ombudsman found Samsung Finance acted fairly in relying on the persuasive inspection evidence and declined to uphold the complaint, as Mr R failed to provide counter-evidence demonstrating the device was faulty upon supply.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which places the burden on the supplier to prove goods were of satisfactory quality at the time of supply when a fault appears within six months. The inspection reports from two independent technicians provided persuasive evidence that the damage was caused after supply through impact, not present at delivery. Mr R failed to provide counter-evidence to rebut the inspection findings or demonstrate the device was faulty upon supply. The ombudsman found Samsung Finance's reliance on the inspection evidence was reasonable and that it was entitled to decline the claim without more persuasive evidence from Mr R.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website