Not upheld: section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim - alleged misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding training course refund complaint against THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (RBS)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs C, who is autistic with ADHD, purchased a £1,669.20 training course but later requested a refund due to availability concerns arising from a complex court case. The merchant refused but offered to defer the course until December 2026. Mrs C claimed she was subjected to pressure selling regarding limited availability and was not informed of the no refunds policy. She asked RBS to assist via a section 75 claim, which RBS rejected. The ombudsman found no breach of contract as the merchant was ready to deliver the training, and insufficient evidence of misrepresentation as the no refunds policy was clearly stated in the signed contract and the pressure selling claims lacked documentary support. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that for a section 75 claim to succeed, there must be either a breach of contract or misrepresentation. No breach of contract existed as the merchant offered and was ready to deliver the training. Regarding misrepresentation, the no refunds policy was clearly stated in the signed contract, and while the agent may not have drawn attention to it, Mrs C signed a document confirming she had read and accepted the terms. The alleged pressure selling regarding limited availability was not supported by sufficient documentary evidence - it was verbal and unsubstantiated. The merchant's offer to defer the course was a reasonable response to Mrs C's availability concerns.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website