Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against DFS Trading Limited (trading as DFS)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6426226 of 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00. Account administration errors complaint against DFS Trading Limited (trading as DFS). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6426226 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | DFS Trading Limited (trading as DFS) |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Account administration errors |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. DFS's offer to change to a deferred credit agreement and remove the original hard credit search (which was actioned) was deemed fair and reasonable. The £150 gesture of goodwill was only applicable if Mr R stayed with the original agreement, which he did not. |
Summary
Mr R complained that DFS set up an incorrect standard credit agreement when he had verbally agreed to a deferred credit agreement (12 months deferred). DFS denied making an error, relying on the terms Mr R signed, but offered him the option to change to a deferred agreement or £150 compensation if he stayed with the standard agreement. Mr R chose to change to a deferred agreement, which resulted in a new hard credit search. The ombudsman found that Mr R received a text message on 22 April 2025 clearly stating repayments would start one month after delivery, which should have alerted him to the agreement type before he electronically signed it the next day. On the balance of probabilities, the ombudsman concluded DFS did not make an error and that their offer to change agreements and remove the original hard credit search was fair and reasonable. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test to resolve the conflicting accounts. The key evidence was that Mr R received a text message on 22 April 2025 at 18:44pm clearly stating that loan repayments would start one month after delivery, not after a deferred period. This message was sent the same day Mr R visited DFS, and Mr R should have realised he had a standard agreement, not a deferred one. The PCCI document shown in-store did not mention any deferred period. When Mr R electronically signed the actual credit agreement the following day, he would have had this knowledge. The ombudsman concluded that DFS did not make an error and therefore was not required to do anything, but DFS's offer to change agreements and remove the original hard credit search was fair and reasonable. The ombudsman also found the complaint handler was not dismissive or condescending based on the call recordings.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| DFS Trading Limited (trading as DFS), all decisions | 1 | 0% |
| Account administration errors, all decisions | 26,544 | 25% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 47,449 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website