Vanquis Bank Limited · DRN-6242081

The complaint Mr A is unhappy with how Vanquis Bank Limited handled a claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act (‘Section 75’) which related to a car he purchased using his credit card. What happened I issued my provisional decision to both parties explaining why I thought Mr A’s complaint should be upheld in part and invited both parties to provide any further evidence and / or submissions in reply. The background to this complaint was set out in my provisional decision together with my provisional findings which are both copied below and now form part of this final decision. Background Mr A used his credit card to pay the car dealership £200 towards the price of his car purchase early in January 2023. Towards the end of January 2023 Mr A paid the car dealership the outstanding balance of £13,250 using a debit card. The car Mr A purchased was over seven years old, with mileage of around 63,000. Mr A contacted the dealership about problems with the car in June 2023, July 2023 and September 2023. In early 2024 Mr A approached Vanquis to consider a claim under Section 75 to recover the funds he had paid for the car as Mr A said the car sold to him had not been of satisfactory quality. Mr A completed a claim form for Vanquis in mid-February 2024 and said that various supporting documentation could be provided. In mid-March 2024 Vanquis requested information from Mr A, who responded later that month by email. Mr A also wrote to Vanquis in early April 2024. Mr A’s submissions at that time were accompanied by various documents relating to his claim. Vanquis approached Mr A in early May 2024 to explain they required further information from him, and to resend some of the documents he had already supplied due to them being unclear. Vanquis chased Mr A for this information later the same month. Due to no response to the information request, Vanquis closed the claim in early June 2024. Mr A contacted Vanquis later the same month, and Vanquis reopened the claim towards the end of June 2024. Early in July 2024 Vanquis attempted to call Mr A three times, on separate days. On the third attempt Mr A asked to be called back, but this didn’t happen. On the same day as the third phone call attempt Vanquis wrote to Mr A setting out once more the information they required from him in order to further consider the claim. The letter provided a deadline of 14 days.

-- 1 of 5 --

At the end of July 2024 Vanquis wrote again to Mr A due to not receiving any of the information requested. The letter explained Vanquis had suspended the assessment pending receipt of the information, and referenced the claim being unsuccessful. The claim was therefore closed. Mr A contacted Vanquis in mid-January 2025 to say he had sent all the required documents and sent the completed claim form but he had received no response from Vanquis. Mr A requested that someone call him about the claim. No call took place and in late January 2025 Mr A called Vanquis to find out about the claim, but Vanquis’s Section 75 team was unavailable at the time. In late February 2025 Mr A called Vanquis about another matter, and as part of the call the Vanquis call handler attempted to call through to the Section 75 team but was unable to do so, and Mr A was told he would hear something in due course. At the end of April 2025 Mr A called Vanquis and a complaint was raised about Vanquis’s failure to call him. Around the same time as this Vanquis sent Mr A a letter requesting the same outstanding information they had previously requested from him for them to be able to continue considering the claim. The letter provided a deadline of 14 days. Mr A called Vanquis towards the end of May 2025 about another matter and at the same time queried the claim, but was told the Section 75 team did not work on a Saturday. Mr A requested a call back from a manager. However, this did not happen. At the end of May 2025 Vanquis upheld Mr A’s complaint that he had not received a call back from Vanquis when promised and offered him £70 to recognise the failing. Separately, around the same time, Vanquis wrote to Mr A to confirm the claim remained closed due to lack of information. Mr A raised his complaint about Vanquis’s handling of the claim through our service. Vanquis told our service they had not done anything wrong in how they had dealt with the claim. As the matter was not resolved, our Investigator considered Mr A’s complaint and concluded Vanquis had fairly handled the claim. The Investigator went a step further to say that in any event they did not consider the available evidence would likely have supported Mr A’s claim. They also concluded the offer of £70 was fair to recognise the customer service failing when Vanquis did not call Mr A back. Mr A strongly disagreed. He maintained that issues with the car had occurred within six months of purchase, and were not minor issues, rather serious failures causing the car to be undriveable and unsafe. Mr A also said repeated issues with the brake-related failures pointed to a systemic issue, rather than wear and tear. Mr A also said Vanquis had caused excessive delays. Provisional findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. For the avoidance of doubt this decision is limited to Vanquis’s handling of Mr A’s Section 75 claim. And it is restricted to Vanquis’s actions in this matter. Mr A may have separate recourses against other parties involved.

-- 2 of 5 --

I have only included a summary of what has happened above, and while I may not respond to every point each party has raised, I have reviewed all the submissions available and focused on what I consider relevant to reaching a fair and reasonable resolution in this matter. To reach a fair and reasonable decision I have taken into account any relevant law and regulations, regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and (where appropriate) what is considered to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. The parties should also note that it is not my role to fine or punish a firm, or to interfere with a firm’s systems, processes or controls – these are all considerations for the appropriate regulator. Mr A approached Vanquis to raise a claim under Section 75 to recover his monies. In light of this and of the mechanisms available to Vanquis, in the circumstances I think it was reasonable for them to consider a Section 75 claim. A Section 75 claim gives a legal right for the account holder (the ‘debtor’) to claim against their credit card issuer (‘the creditor’) in respect of breaches of contract or misrepresentations by a supplier of goods or services (‘the supplier’), so long as certain conditions have been met. These conditions include ensuring that a debtor-creditor-supplier (DCS) relationship exists and that the cash price of the item in question is within the financial limits set out in Section 75. In this case Vanquis did not reach a decision about Mr A’s claim due to a lack of information, and so they closed the case. It is not for me to decide the outcome of the claim. My role here is to decide whether Vanquis fairly handled the claim. And so I’ve considered whether, in the circumstances, it was fair of Vanquis to close the claim. It is accepted that Mr A did provide some information to Vanquis to consider the claim, together with the completed claim form. However, Vanquis reviewed this and as they did not find it enough for them to be able to reach a decision about the outcome of the claim, they requested further information from Mr A. Vanquis approached Mr A several times to obtain information such as the initial vehicle advertisement; an independent report commenting on the existence of faults with the car and when they may have come into existence, together with the estimated cost of remedial work; and clear copies of the road recovery service’s report and copies of Mr A’s bank statement. Given the information and evidence they did have available I think Vanquis were reasonable in requesting the further information from Mr A as without it I don’t think they were able to fairly consider the matter any further to decide if a breach of contract or misrepresentation had taken place. I also note in particular that the information provided by Mr A did not include evidence to support the required conditions that a DCS relationship existed, and to confirm the cash price of the item. In the circumstances, it is difficult for me to be persuaded that Vanquis were handling the claim unfairly when they decided not to take it any further. And because I think Vanquis acted fairly when they closed Mr A’s claim due to a lack of information, I have therefore not considered this any further. Mr A has expressed his concerns that Vanquis made the experience of claiming more upsetting because of their excessive delays in handling the claim.

-- 3 of 5 --

I have already summarised what happened with the claim above in the background to this matter. And having reviewed what has happened I think it is fair to say a long time has passed since Mr A first raised his claim under Section 75. That said, I also think it reasonable to say the delays which have occurred have been due to both parties. Going through the available exchanges I think it’s reasonable to say that Vanquis did not progress things as quickly as they could have done after first receiving Mr A’s claim form, or when they later received his handwritten letter and accompanying documents. There are several weeks it seems, at these times, where the claim was not reasonably progressed. It also appears it took Vanquis around a couple of weeks for them to reopen the case in June 2024. Following the claim being closed towards the end of July 2024, nothing further happens with the claim until Mr A contacts Vanquis in January 2025. Mr A then contacts Vanquis again in January 2025, in February 2025 and in April 2025. Vanquis have already acknowledged they didn’t call Mr A back during this period. In the circumstances, I therefore do think it fair to say Vanquis have a part to play in the delays during this time. Vanquis requested information again from Mr A at the end of April 2025. And although a call took place in late May 2025, Vanquis then wrote again to Mr A explaining that due to the lack of information the claim was closed. The delays that have occurred are disappointing, but it is only fair for me to also consider that Vanquis made several attempts to obtain the information they needed from Mr A in order to continue considering the claim – as I’ve already explained above, I don’t think that was unreasonable. While Mr A had provided some information, Vanquis had set out what more they needed and so it was for Mr A to provide that or explain why it was not available, if that was the case. Taking everything into account, I think Vanquis fairly handled the claim when they decided to close the claim and not consider it any further. But I think there were some delays in Vanquis’s handling of the claim and to recognise this I think it fair that they should pay Mr A £300. The parties should note that the £300 proposed here is in addition to the £70 I understand Vanquis have already paid Mr A to reflect their failings in customer service in relation to promised call backs. Responses to my provisional decision Vanquis accepted my provisional findings and provided no further evidence or submissions for me to consider. Mr A did not accept my provisional findings. Mr A said that information had been made available to Vanquis in the course of the claim. Mr A said that from the outset Vanquis had been given bank statements; evidence that he had paid the deposit using his Vanquis credit card; the report from the roadside recovery firm including a video; and an independent vehicle inspection report also with a video. Mr A said the independent report highlighted significant wear and safety concerns that were present within six months of the vehicle being purchased, so suggesting it was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose. And that he had made Vanquis aware of attempts to repair the vehicle.

-- 4 of 5 --

While grateful for the £300 to recognise delays in Vanquis’s handling of the claim, Mr A also referenced the time spent on calls chasing for updates with Vanquis and attempts to progress the claim. 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 realise this matter is important to Mr A as it is not a small amount of money involved and because Mr A was reliant on having a safe car for him and his family. I assure Mr A I have given his submissions careful consideration and reviewed once more what happened during the course of his dealings with Vanquis about this matter. As I’ve previously set out, my role here is to reach a fair and reasonable decision for both parties. Even with the information Vanquis had from Mr A, which I can see they reviewed, further information was requested for them to continue considering Mr A’s claim. It’s not for me to decide the outcome of the claim, as I’ve said, I can only consider if the claim was fairly handled. I realise Mr A feels he provided enough information to Vanquis to make his case, however, in the circumstances I think it wasn’t unreasonable for Vanquis to request the information they did from Mr A to continue their considerations. It is therefore difficult for me to say they’ve done something wrong or acted unfairly in some way. And so I’ve not seen enough to alter my findings on this point. I’ve looked once more at the time taken in Vanquis’s handling of the claim and I don’t think there is any more I can add to what I have already set out in my provisional decision. I think both parties have a part to play towards the time that passed while Vanquis was handling the claim. And as I explained I think an additional £300 to the £75 already paid to Mr A to recognise Vanquis’s shortcomings – as set out above - is fair in the circumstances. And I’ve not seen anything new in the replies to my provisional decision to persuade me to depart from this. Putting things right Vanquis Bank Limited should pay Mr A £300. My final decision I realise this outcome is not the one that Mr A was hoping for, so it will be a disappointment to him, but for the reasons above I uphold Mr A’s complaint in part and Vanquis Bank Limited should put things right as I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Kristina Mathews Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --