Partially upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6428238 of 2026-06-16T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6428238 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-16T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HSBC UK Bank Plc |
| Product | Credit card |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by customer service failings |
Summary
Mr M purchased a car online through Company A using his HSBC credit card (€500 deposit) as a gift for his mother-in-law Mrs G, with the main payment (€16,000) made by bank transfer to Italian dealership Company B. When the car arrived with missing features, Mr M disputed the payment and claimed section 75 Consumer Credit Act protection. HSBC declined the claim, arguing no Debtor-Creditor-Supplier relationship existed. The ombudsman upheld this decision, finding that Company A was merely an online intermediary and not the supplier, Company B was the actual supplier (evidenced by the main payment going directly to it), and Company A and Company B were not 'associates' under the CCA, thus breaking the required credit chain. However, the ombudsman found HSBC failed in customer service by providing inaccurate information about translation capabilities and making repetitive requests, awarding £300 compensation for this distress.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that no valid Debtor-Creditor-Supplier relationship existed because: (1) the initial contract with Company A was in Mrs G's name, raising concerns about whether Mr M was the contracting party; (2) even if Mr M could make a breach of contract claim, Company A was not the supplier of the car - the terms and conditions showed Company A merely facilitated orders to dealerships; (3) the actual supplier was Company B, to whom the main payment was made directly; (4) Company A and Company B were not 'associates' under section 184 CCA as there was no evidence of common control or parent-subsidiary relationship; (5) therefore the credit card payment to Company A broke the DCS chain. However, HSBC did fail in customer service by providing inaccurate information about translation capabilities, making repetitive information requests, and failing to manage expectations about timeframes.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HSBC UK Bank Plc, all decisions | 7,578 | 23% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Credit card, all decisions | 26,052 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website