Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Tandem Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G purchased a solar panel system through a fixed sum loan with Tandem Bank in June 2025. When the supplier S entered administration in January 2026, Mr G made a section 75 claim alleging misrepresentation (regarding an 'outright purchase' statement) and breach of contract (regarding promised ongoing services, remedial works, and warranty assistance). Tandem rejected the claim, citing the insurance-backed two-year guarantee and manufacturer warranties as adequate protection. The ombudsman upheld Tandem's decision, finding no misrepresentation as Mr G owned the goods immediately and should have known how they were funded, and finding insufficient evidence in the contract terms that S had promised ongoing services beyond installation. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which makes the creditor responsible for breaches of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier. Regarding the 'outright purchase' claim, the ombudsman found that when goods are purchased by fixed sum loan, the borrower owns the goods immediately, the same as with a cash purchase. The proof of ownership form, completed after installation, could not have induced Mr G into the contract, and Mr G should have known how the system was funded given he signed the loan agreement. Regarding ongoing services, the ombudsman found the terms and conditions did not set out that S would provide ongoing support, aftercare, remedial works, or warranty claim assistance beyond the two-year workmanship warranty. The insurance-backed guarantee and manufacturer warranties provided adequate protection. Refunding Mr G and ending his liability would result in unjust enrichment as he would retain the system for free.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website