Tesco Personal Finance Limited · DRN-6049580

The complaint Miss T complains that Tesco Personal Finance Limited trading as Tesco Bank rejected her claim under Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.75) in respect of repairs to her car. What happened In August 2025 Miss T took her car to a local garage. I have not seen any documentation regarding the purpose of the visit, but it is clear that the car required a MOT test. The car had covered in excess of 115,000 miles. The MOT check was undertaken by another garage and the car failed. The MOT record shows the following: “Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects): • Nearside Front Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm tyre separating on inner edge (5.2.3 (e)) Repair immediately (major defects): • Nearside Front Position lamp not working (4.2.1 (a) (ii)) • Offside Front Seat belt webbing significantly weakened cut from edge greater than 2mm (7.1.2 (b)) • Offside Front Seat belt webbing significantly weakened cut from edge greater than 2mm webbing damaged along significant area (7.1.2 (b)) • Nearside Front Suspension arm ball joint excessively worn (5.3.4 (a) (i)) Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories): • Offside Front Tyre worn close to legal limit/worn on edge (5.2.3 (e))” It seems the garage carried out the repairs needed to allow the car to pass the MOT test. The garage didn’t have a replacement seat belt and fitted a temporary one which allowed the car to pass the MOT test. It ordered a correct belt and this was fitted later. Miss T says she didn’t authorise the fitting of the temporary belt and she had paid for a service she hadn’t authorised. She also says it took a month for the garage to issue an invoice and she had, initially been asked to pay in cash. The invoice shows the following: “Tire 2 £110 Service £80 MOT £50

-- 1 of 3 --

Part £108 Labor £210 Seatbelt £90 Total inc. VAT £669.90.” Miss T contacted Tesco Bank and it considered both a chargeback and a claim under s.75. However, it concluded there were no grounds for either to succeed. It also rejected her complaint so Miss T brought the matter to this service. It was considered by one of our investigators who didn’t recommend it be upheld. Miss T didn’t agree and said there was no evidence she had agreed to a temporary seat belt being fitted. The electronic messages showed that the garage had not disclosed that a temporary seatbelt had been fitted and she had not accepted that one be fitted. 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. When the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory as some of it is here – I’ve reached my outcome on the balance of probabilities – that is, what I consider likely to have happened given the available evidence and the wider circumstances. 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 also want to assure Miss T and Tesco Bank that I’ve reviewed everything on file. If I don’t comment on something, it’s not 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. There were two routes by which Miss T could have recovered her money, either by a chargeback or by a claim under s.75. Chargeback A chargeback is the process by which payment settlement disputes are resolved between card issuers and merchants. It allows customers to ask for a transaction to be refunded in a number of situations, such as where the goods or services are defective. There’s no obligation for a card issuer to raise a chargeback when a consumer asks for one. And chargeback is not a guaranteed method of getting a refund because chargebacks may be defended by merchants. It’s important to note that chargebacks are decided based on the card scheme's rules and not the relative merits of the cardholder/merchant dispute. So, it’s not for Tesco Bank – or me – to make a finding about the merits of Miss T’s dispute with the garage. Tesco Bank’s role is to raise the appropriate chargeback and consider whether any filed defence by the merchant complies with the relevant chargeback rules. Tesco was satisfied that Miss T received the services/goods shown on the invoice from the garage and there was no basis for a chargeback. I also think it very likely that the garage would have defended any chargeback claim made and so it was reasonable for Tesco not to have raised one.

-- 2 of 3 --

Section 75 This legislation offers protection to customers who use certain types of credit to make purchases of goods or services. Under s. 75 the consumer has an equal right to claim against the provider of the credit or the retailer providing the goods or services, if there has been a misrepresentation or breach of contract on the supplier’s part. For s. 75 to apply, the law effectively says that there has to be a : • Debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and • A clear breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier in the chain. Our role isn’t to say if there has been a breach of contract or a misrepresentation for a valid claim under s. 75 but to consider if Tesco Bank has come to a fair outcome based on the evidence it was provided. I am satisfied the required agreement is in place and so I must consider if there has been a breach of contract or misrepresentation. Miss T said she didn’t authorise the service or the temporary seatbelt. She has told us that she took her car for a MOT only. The car was elderly and had covered a significant mileage and so it is to be expected that it will have required repairs to various items in order for it to be roadworthy. Looking at the failed MOT it is clear that the car needed significant repairs so that a MOT certificate could be issued and for Miss T to be able to continue to drive it. It seems implicit in the evidence that I have seen that Miss T wanted the car to pass its MOT check and it seems to me that is what the garage did. It replaced the illegal tyres and made the necessary repairs. The only issue it could not address immediately was the faulty seatbelt but it seems to have made an effort to get Miss T on the road again without any delay by fitting a temporary belt while the right one was sourced. From my reading of the invoice it appears that the garage made no extra charge for this and it appears that it was seeking to be helpful. Nor can I see from the invoice that she was charged for two MOTs despite two being carried out. That said there may have been a separate invoice which I have not seen. I have seen no evidence of a misrepresentation or breach of contract. There is no evidence as to what was agreed up front, but it is fairly clear that Miss T wanted her car to have its MOT so she could drive it and for it to be put into a state in which that could happen. That is what the garage did and it helped her stay mobile while a correct seatbelt was obtained. As for the issues of payment by cash being requested or the delay in the issue of the invoice these are not matters which cause me to conclude that Miss T’s complaint should be upheld. 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 Miss T to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Ivor Graham Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --