DRN-6182601

The complaint Mr P has complained Scott Consumer Finance Limited (SCF) acted unfairly when declining his request for money back. What happened The parties are familiar with the background details of this complaint – so, I’ll only briefly summarise them here. It reflects my role of resolving disputes quickly with minimum formality. In April 2024, Mr P enrolled onto an electrical advanced training course with a company who I’ll refer to as E. To fund the course Mr P borrowed £7,790 from SCF using a fixed sum loan agreement. Mr P was aiming to complete the course within 24 months but had 48 months to do so. Mr P says he informed E he wanted to cancel the course after around 18 days, but E declined because his request was made after the 14-day cancellation period had expired. In August 2025, Mr P contacted SCF to say he’d been a victim of fraud as the course had been misrepresented by E. SCF responded by saying they’d found no evidence of fraudulent activity by E in relation to the sale and subsequent provision of the training course. SCF also said they’d found nothing to show any misrepresentation or breach of contract by E under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (S75 CCA). So, SCF continued to hold Mr P liable for the credit agreement’s outstanding balance. Unhappy with this outcome Mr P asked the Financial Ombudsman to consider the matter. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. In summary, they said they’d found no evidence of fraud and nothing to show E had misrepresented the training course or subsequently breached the contract under S75 CCA. The Investigator also didn’t think there had been any breach under Section 56 of the CCA. So, the Investigator concluded SCF had acted fairly when declining Mr P’s claim. Mr P didn’t agree with the Investigator’s findings saying E had failed to provide the promised practical training and structured support – which he believed was a failing under Section 49 of the Consumer rights Act 2015 (S49 CRA). So, the complaint has come to me to decide. 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. I want to acknowledge that I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I want to assure Mr P and SCF that I’ve reviewed everything on file. And if I don’t comment on something, it isn’t because I haven’t considered it, it’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this. I’m sorry to hear Mr P is unhappy with the training course provided by E and how it was sold. However, it’s important to note I’m not considering a complaint against E. My decision is

-- 1 of 4 --

about the actions of SCF and what it should fairly have done for Mr P in its position as the provider of the funds that facilitated the purchase of the service provided by E. In looking at how SCF handled the claim Mr P brought to them, I’ve considered the information reasonably available to SCF at the time, along with the relevant aspects of section 75 and section 56 of the CCA and the relevant sections of the CRA, including section 49. S49 CRA requires that every contract for a trader to supply a service includes a term that the service must be performed with reasonable care and skill. This legal standard focuses on the quality of the service delivery and protects consumers against negligent or subpar work and is an implied term irrespective of whether it’s expressly written down or not. "Reasonable care and skill" generally aligns with the standard of care expected of a competent professional in that trade. If a trader breaks this term, the consumer is entitled to remedies under section 54 CRA, including repeat performance (fixing the issue) or a price reduction (up to a full refund). In certain circumstances, S75 CCA allows Mr P to hold SCF liable for a ‘like claim’ for breach of contract or misrepresentation in respect of an agreement with a supplier for goods or services which is funded by a regulated finance agreement. S56 CCA makes lenders legally responsible for "antecedent negotiations"—what a dealer or broker says or does before a credit agreement is signed. It deems the negotiator (supplier) to be the agent of the lender, allowing consumers to hold the lender liable for misrepresentation, broken promises, or faulty goods. I’m satisfied the requirements for Mr P to make a like claim under S75 and S56 CCA against SCF have been met on this complaint. So, I’ve gone on to consider if there is persuasive evidence of a breach of contract or misrepresentation which would reasonably have been available to SCF at the time it considered the claim. Fraud Fraud is the intentional, dishonest act of using deception to gain money, property, or an advantage, or to cause loss to another person or organisation. It involves false representation, concealing crucial facts, or abusing a position of trust. Common examples include identity theft, bank fraud, investment scams, and phishing. Based on what I’ve seen, I understand why SCF concluded there was insufficient evidence to support Mr P had been the victim of fraud by E. In the circumstances, I think this was a reasonable conclusion for SCF to have reached. Unlike a court, I’m unable to summon witnesses for cross examination. And SCF would have faced similar hurdles. So, it’s difficult to reach firm conclusions about fraud in the informal forum that I’m able to investigate this complaint. It’s my understanding Mr P reported, in August 2025, to Action Fraud and Crime Prevention Centre that E had committed fraud in relation to the sale of the training course and their subsequent failure to provide the promised service. Should the Courts decide this is the case, then I’d expect SCF to reconsider the matter. Mr P also doesn’t have to accept this decision. He’s free to pursue the complaint by more formal means such as through the courts, where witnesses may be able to be called and cross examined. Misrepresentation and breach of contract

-- 2 of 4 --

E’s records show Mr P held several initial sales meetings with E over a period of three days. Some of those meetings were recorded. We’ve been provided with the transcript of the video recording that took place on 24 April 2024. The transcript shows Mr P asked E’s sales advisor many questions about the course and linked credit agreement before he agreed to proceed. In summary, E’s representative said: • The course required Mr P to complete modules which were set out in a series of books E would provide throughout the course. • Support was provided by learning aids and tutors - who would also mark the assessments. • Typically, an assessment would be undertaken at the end of every book with the books containing a varied number of modules. For example, book one contained six modules while book two contained three modules and book three five modules. • During the course, Mr P would need to attend a centre to complete practical training sessions and assessments. It was estimated these would take place every six to eight weeks, but this would be dependent on how quickly Mr P completed the prerequisite modules and assessments. Mr P opted to attend the centre over two weekends rather than Monday to Friday during a single week. E indicated there was the possibility of them providing Mr P with some help towards travel and accommodation costs. • The first centre attendance was required after the completion of book two – module nine – where the first couple of practicals would be undertaken and completed. Further centre attendance would then be required following the completion of further books and assessments. • Qualifications and certificates would be obtained and issued throughout the course following completion of the required practicals and assessments. • Confirmation of the 14-day cooling off period with regards to the course and the linked credit agreement. During the meeting, Mr P confirmed he’d received a number of things including: • Plan of the course • Study guide • Manual • First book • Copy of credit agreement The credit agreement confirmed how much Mr P was borrowing from SCF and set out how much he’d need to pay to them each month and for how long. It also highlighted Mr P was able to cancel the agreement within 14 days of it starting. It isn’t disputed that Mr P received a copy of the credit agreement. And I think it’s fair to say the provided transcript shows detailed discussions were held between Mr P and E’s advisor about the credit agreement prior to Mr P agreeing to apply and go ahead with it. I’ve not seen anything to show Mr P contacted either E or SCF within the 14-day cancellation period. So, I don’t believe SCF acted unfairly when declining Mr P’s request to cancel the credit agreement at the time it was made. As far as I can tell, SCF has administered the

-- 3 of 4 --

credit agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions. So, I don’t consider there has been any breach of contract in this regard. Mr P has said E has declined to provide access to the promised practical training and structured support. But I’m not persuaded the evidence shows this. In the circumstances, I understand why AESEL would have wanted to see more to show this - for example, an exchange of emails or other correspondence to show E has declined to grant Mr P access to the training centre or help facilitate this. The evidence shows Mr P completed the nine modules that comprised of the first two books. According to E, the last assessment was marked and passed in July 2025. I think it’s fair to say it’s unlikely this would have been achieved without E providing some support and guidance to Mr P. It’s my understanding Mr P now needs to attend the training centre to undertake the first couple of practicals. E says Mr P needs to contact them to arrange this and he has until April 2028 to complete the entire course. Given the available evidence, I understand why AESEL didn’t think it showed there had been any misrepresentation or breach of contract under S75 CCA. In the circumstances, I think this was a fair conclusion for AESEL to have reached. I say this because I don’t consider the evidence shows the course and its provision by E isn’t in accordance with how it was presented and described to Mr P at its point of sale in April 2024. I also don’t consider there was any misrepresentation in those antecedent negotiations under S56 CCA. Nor do I think the evidence supports there has been any breach in the express and implied terms of the service under the CRA, including section 49. Overall, I consider SCF handled Mr P’s complaint fairly and in a timely manner without any undue delays. It was for Mr P to provide evidence to show there had been misrepresentation and/or a breach of contract under CCA and CRA in relation to the sale and implementation of the training course by E. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think SCF was presented with enough evidence to show this. If Mr P is able to get something persuasive to show E is failing to provide Mr P access to the training centre and any support he’s entitled to, then I’d expect SCF to deal with any new information accordingly. While I’m sympathetic for the situation Mr P finds himself in, for the reasons I’ve explained above, I don’t have the grounds to direct SCF to take any further action in relation to this complaint, and I think it’s reasonable for SCF to hold Mr P liable for the credit agreement’s outstanding balance (of around £5,000). It’s my understanding Mr P stopped paying the monthly instalments around September 2025, and the account has now defaulted. I’d remind SCF of the Financial Conduct Authority’s requirement for firms to treat customers experiencing financial hardship with forbearance and due consideration. Should Mr P have not done so already, he may wish to speak to SCF to discuss a way forward, and if he thinks they treat him unfairly it might be something we can consider for him. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Carl Bibby Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --