Not upheld: Section 75 claim handling - alleged misrepresentation and breach of contract complaint against Carnegie Consumer Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H took out a fixed sum loan with Carnegie to finance an electrician's course through provider N in September 2020. He claimed the course was sold as tutor-led with structured support but was delivered as self-study with minimal support, and he subsequently enrolled at a local college. Mr H made a Section 75 claim against Carnegie seeking a refund. Carnegie declined the claim, finding no evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The ombudsman upheld Carnegie's decision, finding that the course documentation clearly described it as 'self-study' with optional telephone support, and Mr H provided no evidence to support his claim that he was told it would be tutor-led. Although Mr H was disappointed with the service, this did not constitute a breach of contract or misrepresentation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr H was disappointed with the course, there was no evidence of misrepresentation or breach of contract. The course documentation clearly described it as a 'self-study' program with optional telephone support, not as 'tutor led' as Mr H claimed. Although Mr H stated he was led to believe he would receive more support, he provided no evidence to support this assertion. The course plan did provide for structured modules and practical sessions, and tutor support was available by telephone. Initial access issues and a bounced text message, while frustrating, did not constitute a breach of the implied term of reasonable care and skill. Online reviews from other customers were not evidence of the service Mr H personally received.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website