Conister Bank Limited · DRN-5966484

The complaint Miss T says an online course was mis-sold and misrepresented to her, so Conister Bank Limited ought to end the fixed sum loan agreement it provided to pay for the course. What happened Miss T enrolled on an online course with a supplier, O, in November 2024. The course cost around £4,000 and Miss T paid £3,000 towards it using a fixed sum loan agreement, provided by Conister Bank Limited. Miss T’s loan was managed by Conister Bank Limited’s partner company, but I’ll only refer to Conister Bank Limited throughout this decision to keep things simple. Miss T says O described the course as suitable for beginners without any background experience, and it would need 10 hours of study time per week. She also says O promised the course would lead to a job with an entry level salary of £50,000. During the 14-day cooling off period Miss T asked Conister Bank Limited to confirm her right to withdraw from the agreement. Conister Bank Limited said she would need to repay the loan in full if she withdrew from the finance agreement, and to talk to O if she wanted to cancel the course in full. Miss T ultimately went ahead with the course and loan agreement. In September 2025, Miss T said she was unhappy with the way O sold the course to her. She made a complaint, saying: • She was pressured into enrolling and taking out a loan to pay for the course. • The interest rate of the loan was too high, and it was unfair to expect her to fully repay the loan if she withdrew from it within 14 days. • The course requires a lot more than ten hours of study a week and will take more than six months to complete. • The course wasn’t suitable for someone without previous experience and knowledge. • She hadn’t been shown job opportunities with salaries of over £50,000. • There were no guarantees of passing the exams and minimal support. • Many other students had dropped out of the course and were unhappy with the quality of the content. Miss T asked O to reduce the cost of the course by 50% to reflect these problems. O didn’t agree to do this, saying it thought Miss T was engaging with the course. Miss T then made a complaint to Conister Bank Limited, asking it to consider a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (S75 CCA). Conister Bank Limited agreed with the response from O and told Miss T it didn’t think the course had been misrepresented to her. As she didn’t agree, Miss T brought her complaint to our service.

-- 1 of 6 --

Our Investigator didn’t think Conister Bank Limited had treated Miss T unfairly. She said the recording of the sales call suggested Miss T wasn’t pressured to sign up, and O clearly explained the interest rate for the loan agreement in the call recording. She thought there wasn’t enough evidence to show Miss T tried to cancel the course within 14-days despite asking questions about the terms – so it wasn’t unreasonable for Conister Bank Limited to hold her liable for the payments. Our Investigator also thought the available evidence from the sale showed there hadn’t been a false statement of fact about the course. She said O explained in the call recordings the course had an estimated completion time of six to nine months and there wasn’t evidence to show it was unsuitable for beginners like Miss T. She also thought there were no guarantees made about available jobs and salaries. Miss T didn’t accept this finding. She said a webinar she attended made promises about the course which hadn’t materialised. Our Investigator got a recording of the webinar from O and reviewed it in full. She said she still thought no guarantees were made regarding the completion time, study hours, salaries and job opportunities. Miss T provided further emails between her and O which she said showed O hadn’t supported her during the course. As she remained unhappy with the Investigator’s finding, she asked for a final decision on her complaint. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I agree with the outcome reached by the Investigator – and I’ll explain why. Miss T has made several detailed points in her complaint and says she’s concerned her complaint hasn’t been taken seriously. I want to reassure Miss T that I’ve considered everything she’s said and all the information on the file. But in my decision, I don’t intend to refer to everything or address every point made. I mean no discourtesy by this, instead I will focus on what I see as being the key outstanding points following the Investigator’s outcome, and the reasons for making my decision. Where the evidence available to me is incomplete or inconclusive (as some of it is here), I’ve reached my decision on the balance of probabilities – in other words, what I consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the available evidence and the wider circumstances. Miss T paid for the course with a fixed sum loan agreement, which is a regulated consumer credit agreement. Conister Bank Limited has also confirmed the decision to lend to Miss T took place in the UK. So I’m persuaded the complaint is one I can consider. Conister Bank Limited is a different business to the online course provider, O. So, I can’t hold it responsible for everything that may have gone wrong. However, as Miss T paid for the course with a fixed sum loan agreement, she can ask Conister Bank Limited to consider her claim under S75 CCA. S75 CCA allows a borrower under a credit agreement to make a like claim against the credit provider if there’s either a breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier of the goods and/or services. There are certain conditions to be met for a valid claim to be considered, and I think they’ve been met here. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) implies terms into the contract to supply services that “the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill” (Section 49). In addition, there are terms expressed in the contract between Miss T and O. I therefore need to decide how Conister Bank Limited answered the claim for breach of contract and misrepresentation.

-- 2 of 6 --

Breach of implied terms I’ve first thought about whether Conister Bank Limited has fairly considered if there has been a breach of contract due to implied terms from the CRA. Miss T says the course was mis- sold to her by O and wasn’t as described. She thinks O didn’t make it clear the course would be unsuitable for her as a beginner without experience. Miss T says she was pressured into enrolling quickly and taking out finance. She also said the interest rate Conister Bank Limited gave her was too high. Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 explains that finance providers are liable for the actions or omissions of the supplier or credit broker before the sale, where certain conditions are met. This is relevant to Miss T’s complaint, as it means Conister Bank Limited can be held liable for what is said by O before the finance agreement was taken out. I’d expect O to have given Miss T clear and correct information about the course before and during the sale. I’ve been provided with the recording of the sales call as well as a recording of the webinar Miss T attended. The webinar took place the day before Miss T called O to enrol on the course, so I think I can consider the information from the webinar recording as part of the antecedent negotiations. I’m not persuaded O applied unreasonable pressure when it sold the course to Miss T. The call took place after Miss T contacted O to enrol following the webinar, suggesting she actively engaged in the sale, rather than it being a cold call. In the call recording, Miss T said she wanted to start in January, but O said it only had start dates in December. At one point, Miss T told the advisor she didn’t want to wait to enrol, so I think she was happy to proceed without being unfairly coerced. I can appreciate Miss T might have felt rushed because the only cohort start dates were in December 2024, and because she explained she’d been out of work for a few months. I’m sorry to hear Miss T felt this way, but I don’t think this means she was pressured unduly into buying the course. I don’t think the advisor Miss T spoke to rushed her to make a decision in the call either – instead, Miss T asked a series of questions about the course which the advisor answered, only continuing with the sale when Miss T had finished her questions. Conister Bank Limited asked O for information about the sale. O provided an email it sent Miss T on 19 November 2024, following the sales call, which set out the details of the course. This email says there were two available cohorts starting in December 2024, and there was limited. It also provided Miss T with a link to the course brochure and the option to get in touch with questions. Miss T also had the information she was given in the webinar the previous day. So I’m satisfied she was provided with time to digest the information and ask questions, even if she felt she had to sign up quickly to get a place on the cohort. I understand Miss T says she intended to complete the course quickly and thought it would take her six months if she studied for ten hours a week. But this isn’t the impression I got from the sales call. Instead, I think O told Miss T the course generally takes six to nine months to complete without setting any guarantees. The advisor says they personally hadn’t seen anyone complete it in less than six months, but they would be able to change the pace of the course to suit Miss T if she wanted to study full time. The webinar also sets expectations that the course should take at least 6 months to complete.

-- 3 of 6 --

Miss T provided emails showing she had problems accessing some of the online systems and content, as well as emails requesting the tutors videocall her rather than call her personal mobile. But I don’t think the emails show O failed to provide support for the course itself, just that she didn’t receive support calls in her preferred format. I do think the emails do show there were some long-term technical issues Miss T faced during the course, but it isn’t clear what was causing these or how they impacted her learning. As such, I don’t think there is enough evidence here to show the course wasn’t provided with reasonable care and skill because of these issues. I’m mindful Miss T hasn’t provided Conister Bank Limited with evidence to show why she couldn’t complete the course in the six to nine month estimated time, or evidence that she couldn’t resit her exams as described. Without this evidence, I can’t fairly say there has been a breach of contract by O. The sales call recording also includes information about the loan agreement. The advisor told Miss T she could apply for finance if she was unemployed, subject to being accepted by the lender. Miss T took some time to review the finance contract during the call and commented on the interest rate of 20% - the advisor explained this was because she wasn’t employed, and Miss T said she understood the risk of lending to someone without a job. I can’t make a finding on the rate of interest itself, as this was a commercial lending decision by Conister Bank Limited. But I’m satisfied the interest rate and terms of the agreement were made clear to Miss T before she entered into the contract. Overall, I can understand Miss T is frustrated and disappointed the course hasn’t met her expectations. But, having considered the circumstances of the case, I don’t think Conister Bank Limited has acted unfairly when it rejected Miss T’s claim of a breach of contract under terms implied by the CRA. Withdrawal and cancellation I understand Miss T is also concerned about the right to withdraw from the contract. She sent Conister Bank Limited an email on 28 November 2024, asking why she needed to pay for the course if she wanted to withdraw from the agreement. The right of withdrawal applies to the fixed sum loan agreement and means Miss T could have withdrawn from the agreement within 14 days from the day after the agreement started. In that case, she would be expected to repay the full amount of the loan to Conister Bank Limited, because it had already paid the loan funds to O. I don’t think this clause is unreasonable or uncommon, as withdrawal only affects the finance agreement – not the contract for the goods or services. If Miss T wanted to cancel the course, this would have been subject to O’s cancellation terms. I’ve looked at the terms and conditions for the course, which say Miss T had a right to cancel it before the services started, within 14 days, unless the course started within that time. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCRs) do allow customers to cancel a contract purchased ‘at a distance’ within a certain time frame. If it was clear Miss T had validly exercised her right to cancel the contract, this would mean O had a contractual responsibility to provide the refund. I therefore think the CCRs are relevant, alongside the express terms in the contract.

-- 4 of 6 --

However, I’ve found Miss T spoke to Conister Bank Limited about the withdrawal period for the finance agreement, but I’ve not seen Miss T provided Conister Bank Limited with evidence she asked O to cancel the course within 14 days of signing the contract. In her email, she says she’s asking “not that I’m thinking to [withdraw], but just as information for me”. O has told Conister Bank Limited that Miss T didn’t ask to cancel her enrolment, and she has engaged with the course. Having thought about these points, I think Conister Bank Limited has reasonably concluded Miss T didn’t exercise her right to withdraw from the finance agreement, or act on her cancellation rights in the terms and conditions or the CCRs. So, I don’t think it’s unfairly asking her to pay for the loan agreement. Misrepresentation I’ve also considered if there’s sufficient evidence to show O misrepresented the course to Miss T. For the purposes of S75 CCA, misrepresentation is where there is an untrue statement of fact made by the supplier, that induces the consumer into entering the contract. I understand Miss T thinks the online webinar made claims about the course that induced her into entering into the contract, but I think it’s up to Miss T to explain how she thinks O misrepresented the course. When I asked Miss T to highlight the parts of the webinar where she thought O had misrepresented the course, she referred to a single slide showing average salary ranges for an employee going through the course. I’ve watched this section of the webinar and while the presenter provides statistics and information about the benefits of the course and certification, Miss T hasn’t shown Conister Bank Limited these statements were false. I can appreciate Miss T might not have been successful at gaining the salaries presented to her, and she might have found the course harder than she expected. But I don’t agree this means the course was misrepresented to her. I’m also mindful some of Miss T’s concerns about the course may be subjective, and these will be difficult for her to prove. As I’ve already said, I think it’s reasonable for Conister Bank Limited to expect to see supporting evidence from Miss T to show how O misrepresented the course to her. Based on the evidence it had at the time of the claim, I think Conister Bank Limited has reached a fair conclusion when saying O hasn’t misrepresented the course to Miss T. Summary Having thought about the circumstances of this complaint, I don’t think Conister Bank Limited has treated Miss T unfairly when rejecting her claim or asking her to repay the loan agreement. I’m sympathetic to Miss T’s situation and appreciate she is disappointed by the course, but I don’t think Conister Bank Limited needs to do anything to resolve the complaint. I would remind Conister Bank Limited of its obligations to treat Miss T fairly if her circumstances have changed or she needs support with her loan agreement. I would also remind Miss T that our involvement, should she choose not to accept my final decision, doesn’t prevent her from pursuing other ways of resolving the matter with O. And so this doesn’t take away any statutory rights Miss T may have. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint.

-- 5 of 6 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss T to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Hannah Dunkley Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --