DRN-6054567

The complaint Mr T has complained about how Creation Consumer Finance Limited (Creation) handled a claim he made under Section 75 (S75) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in relation to problems with a kitchen installation. What happened The details of this complaint are well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here. The facts aren’t in dispute, so I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my decision. 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. For avoidance of any doubt, I want to clarify that I have read and considered the evidence submitted by the parties but won’t comment on it all – only the matters I consider to be central to this complaint. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy but reflects my role in resolving disputes informally. It’s important to note that Creation aren’t the provider of the goods here – so in deciding what is fair and reasonable, I’m looking at their particular role as a provider of financial services. In doing so I note that because Mr T took out a finance agreement with Creation to fund the kitchen, a S75 claim could possibly help him. So in deciding what is fair and reasonable I’ve focused on this. As a summary, Mr T purchased a kitchen from a supplier I shall call ‘V’ via a fixed sum loan agreement with Creation in February 2024. The fixed sum loan agreement confirmed this was for a cash price of £9,751.74 and the total amount of credit to be £8,776.57. The initial kitchen installation was for April 2024 but there were various documented issues that meant that rectification works remained unresolved into June 2025. A field inspection report was produced on 23 May 2025 which detailed 19 outstanding defects that Mr T identified as requiring addressing. However these further works didn’t occur as an agreement wasn’t reached between V and Mr T regarding compensation for the distress and inconvenience suffered. V offered £550.00 compensation in an email of 17 June 2025 along with an offer to complete the remaining remedial work. Mr T didn’t consider this was appropriate to address the level of impact the on-going works had on him over the previous year and asked Creation to consider this further under their S75 review. V subsequently offered a refund of £2000.00 in lieu of any further rectification works as an alternative. Creation considered these offers appropriate to address what had happened and didn’t think anything further was due. As Mr T didn’t agree, he brought his complaint to this service –

-- 1 of 4 --

and while our investigator agreed with Creation’s findings, they felt that a further £150.00 was due for some customer service failings on their part in their handling of Mr T’s claim. As Mr T remained dissatisfied with this outcome, he asked for an ombudsman to issue a final decision on the matter. My provisional findings were sent to Mr T on 10 March 2026 on why I considered Creation had handled his S75 claim correctly and why V’s offer was fair. As Mr T didn’t agree, I’ve considered his further submissions as a part of this final decision. I’ve considered all the evidence provided by both Mr T and Creation, including the detailed chronology of events. But I don’t think it’s necessary to set out the chronology in full here. The key points about what happened, including the installation, the issues raised, and the remedial works carried out – aren’t materially in dispute. Instead, I need to decide what represents a fair and reasonable outcome considering the current position and the remaining issues. I want to acknowledge that this has been a lengthy and frustrating experience for Mr T. I can see the issues began shortly after installation and have required several remedial visits. I don’t doubt this would have been stressful and inconvenient, particularly given the disruption that works to a kitchen can cause. However, my role here isn’t to revisit each stage of what happened in detail, but to consider the position now and whether the outcome proposed is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The current offer I’m satisfied that there were problems with the kitchen following installation and that V had attempted to put things right on a number of occasions. While I understand Mr T has lost confidence in further works being carried out, I need to consider what remedy is appropriate now. I appreciate why Mr T feels further repairs should not be required after all of the previous visits. However, the remaining issues identified are limited in nature and I haven’t seen sufficient evidence that the kitchen as a whole is unusable or fundamentally defective. In those circumstances, I don’t think it would be fair to require a substantially larger refund or treat the matter as if the kitchen should be rejected entirely. V has offered two options: further remedial works alongside a payment of £550.00, or a payment of £2,000.00 to Mr T to retain the kitchen as it is. In the circumstances, I think it’s reasonable for V to offer to either complete repairs or provide a financial alternative. However, considering the nature of the remaining issues, I’m not persuaded they render the kitchen unusable or unfit for purpose. On balance, they relate primarily to finish and appearance. In that context, I’m satisfied that a payment of £2,000.00 reasonably reflects the cost of addressing those remaining issues, together with compensation for the inconvenience caused for the length of time this has been on-going. So I think the offer is fair. I’ve also taken into account Mr T’s prior correspondence with V. In June 2025 he said he was ‘ready and willing to move forward cooperatively’ and that the remaining works were close to being agreed, subject to clarity on the financial element. That suggests that, at that stage, he was prepared to allow V to complete the works. In that context, I think it was reasonable for V to continue offering further remedial works alongside a clear financial alternative. Given the nature of the remaining issues, I’m satisfied the £2,000.00 option represents a fair way to resolve matters without the need for further disruption.

-- 2 of 4 --

Warranty Mr T has raised concerns that accepting the financial settlement would result in the loss of the kitchen’s warranty. I understand why that’s important to him. However, the warranty is a separate contractual arrangement between Mr T and V. The settlement option is intended to bring matters to a close without further involvement from V. It wouldn’t be consistent for V to provide a payment in lieu of further works while remaining responsible under an ongoing warranty for the same issues. In any event, my role here is to consider Creation’s liability under S75. I’m satisfied the settlement is intended to resolve the remaining defects and compensate for the impact of those issues. In those circumstances, I don’t think the separate question of future warranty cover makes the offer unfair. Water ingress Mr T has also said that there is a ‘design fault’ relating to the positioning of the worktop joint near the sink. I’ve considered the correspondence he’s referred to about this. From what I’ve seen, this relates to the proximity of a joint to the sink area and the potential for water ingress over time. While I accept this may not represent ideal positioning, I haven’t seen sufficient evidence that this amounts to a fundamental defect that renders the kitchen unfit for purpose. I also note that the proposed remedial approach involved relatively minor adjustments to positioning rather than evidence of a fundamental failure requiring full replacement. This supports my position that the issue was limited in scope rather than evidence of a fundamental failure of the goods. Fridge Freezer Damage Mr T has also said remedial works caused damage to his fridge freezer and other personal property. I understand why he feels strongly about this. However, based on the evidence available, I haven’t seen enough independent evidence to conclude, on balance, that the damage was caused by V or that Creation should be held liable for this under the S75 claim. So I’m not asking Creation to make a separate award for this. V’s customer service Mr T has also raised concerns about his experience dealing with V’s customer service. I can understand why he feels dissatisfied, particularly given the length of time matters have been ongoing and the number of interactions involved. However, I haven’t seen enough to suggest that V’s handling of the matter was so poor that it would warrant a separate award. Instead, I think the impact of the delays, repeated visits and communication issues is already reflected in the overall level of compensation that’s been offered. So I don’t think it would be fair to require Creation to pay anything further on that basis. Creation’s communications I’ve also considered the service provided by Creation when handling Mr T’s claims. From what I’ve seen, there were some delays and a lack of clarity in how the complaint was progressed. I don’t think that meets the standards I’d expect.

-- 3 of 4 --

However, I haven’t seen enough to say the impact was such that a higher award would be warranted than that suggested by our investigator in their review. I’m satisfied that £150.00 is a fair and reasonable amount to reflect the inconvenience caused by Creation’s handling of the complaint. Putting things right Overall, while I accept there were problems with the kitchen and that this has been frustrating for Mr T, I’m satisfied many of the original issues have been addressed and the remaining concerns are limited in nature. Taking that into account, along with the inconvenience caused, I think the options V have offered – including the £2,000.00 payment – represent a fair and proportionate way to resolve the complaint. I also think a £150.00 compensation payment in respect of Creation’s handling is reasonable. So I won’t be asking Creation to do more. My final decision For the reasons explained above, I partly uphold this complaint. Creation Consumer Finance Ltd must: • Pay £150.00 to Mr T to reflect Creation’s handling of the S75 claim. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 28 May 2026. Viral Patel Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --