Partially upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Barclays Bank UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H sought a Section 75 CCA claim against Barclays for approximately £30,000 following the supply of a faulty used vehicle purchased via hire purchase with a deposit paid on his Barclays credit card. The vehicle developed tyre valve issues that an independent engineer later confirmed were likely present at supply, and the Motor Ombudsman subsequently upheld a complaint about the vehicle's quality. Barclays declined the Section 75 claim in December 2025, reasoning that the vehicle was no longer owned and the claimed losses were not direct consequences of any breach. The ombudsman found Barclays' decision to decline the claim was reasonable based on contract law principles regarding consequential losses, but upheld the complaint in part due to service failings in communication and explanation of their reasoning, awarding £75 compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the Motor Ombudsman had determined the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, Barclays' decision to decline the Section 75 claim was reasonable based on the information available to them at the time. The ombudsman applied the three-part test for consequential losses (directness, foreseeability, and mitigation) and concluded the claimed losses did not meet these criteria. However, the ombudsman identified service failings in Barclays' communication, including failure to clearly demonstrate consideration of the engineer's report, poor explanation of evidence requirements, and failure to clearly set out the limits of Section 75 liability.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website