Partially upheld: Mis-selling and misrepresentation; Section 75 CCA claim; consequential losses complaint against Barclays Bank UK Plc (trading as Barclaycard)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6390941 of 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00. Mis-selling and misrepresentation; Section 75 CCA claim; consequential losses complaint against Barclays Bank UK Plc (trading as Barclaycard). Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6390941 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays Bank UK Plc (trading as Barclaycard) |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | Mis-selling and misrepresentation; Section 75 CCA claim; consequential losses |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Barclaycard directed to pay: (1) £495 for the SUP course; (2) £145 for the first aid course; (3) £29.82 for membership renewal; (4) cost of essential equipment purchased specifically for the course (paddle board, paddle, leash, SUP clothing) subject to Mr C providing evidence and allowing collection, or the difference between purchase and sale prices if sold; (5) 8% simple interest per annum on all refunded amounts from the date of Barclaycard's original outcome to settlement; (6) 8% simple interest on equipment costs from date of purchase to settlement. |
Summary
Mr C purchased an online SUP instructor course for £495 using his Barclaycard credit card, believing it would provide a globally recognised qualification. After completing the course in mid-2024, he discovered the qualification was not recognised anywhere and the course was merely a merchant membership scheme. Barclaycard agreed the course was mis-sold and refunded the £495, but declined Mr C's claim for approximately £24,500-£47,000 in consequential losses including travel to Australia, lost earnings, and time costs. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, directing Barclaycard to also reimburse the first aid course (£145), membership fee (£29.82), and the cost of essential equipment purchased specifically for the course, but upheld the firm's refusal to pay speculative lost earnings, time costs, and travel expenses to Australia as these failed the legal tests for consequential loss recovery.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Under Section 75 CCA, a credit provider is jointly liable for breaches of contract or misrepresentation by suppliers, and consumers can recover direct out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the breach. However, consequential losses must meet three tests: they must be direct losses from the breach, reasonably foreseeable, and the claimant must have taken reasonable steps to mitigate. While the course was mis-sold, most claimed consequential losses failed these tests because they were either not direct results of the breach, not reasonably foreseeable, or not accurately calculable (such as speculative lost earnings and time costs). However, direct costs specifically incurred to complete the course (first aid, membership, essential equipment) were recoverable as they would not have been incurred but for the mis-sold course.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank UK Plc (trading as Barclaycard), all decisions | 51 | 12% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 25,211 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website