Frasers Group Financial Services Limited · DRN-6221176

The complaint Ms M has complained that Frasers Group Financial Services Limited trading as Frasers Plus (‘FP’) wrongly declined her claim for a refund of a purchase made using her FP credit account. What happened The background to this complaint is well known by both parties so I’ll focus this decision on my findings. I issued a provisional decision upholding this complaint in part. Both parties disagreed. Ms M said she wanted a full refund. FG reiterated that it didn’t think it handled Ms M’s claim unfairly. So, the matter has been passed back 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. Although a number of issues have been raised, this decision only addresses those issues I consider to be materially relevant to this complaint. This isn’t meant as a discourtesy to either party – it simply reflects the informal nature of our Service. However, I’ve reconsidered everything including the further submissions in response to my provisional decision. When a person approaches their credit provider for assistance when something has gone wrong with a purchase they’ve made, that provider could consider a claim under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘section 75’). Section 75 allows a customer to submit a claim for breach of contract or misrepresentation by a supplier to their credit provider. I’m satisfied there was a valid Debtor-Creditor-Supplier agreement between Ms M, FP and the supplier, who I’ll refer to as ‘X’. However, for Section 75 to apply to a transaction, it must also be shown the claim relates to individual items with a cash price (each) of over £100 and no more than £30,000. Here, Ms M bought several items that didn’t meet the section 75 threshold of over £100. Under section 75, the goods must be over £100 (i.e. at least £100.01). So, I don’t think FP was incorrect when it declined her claim for those items. I appreciate it was all part of the same order which cost a total of just over £952 but each item, from what I can see, could be bought separately. In terms of the items that were £100.01 or over, I remain satisfied that FP should refund Ms M for these items. The items that meet the section 75 criteria were for £135, £119 and £119 (i.e. a total of £373). In reaching this decision, I’ve taken into account the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (’CRA’). Section 29 of the CRA sets out that the contract between X and Ms M is to be treated as including a term that the goods supplied to Ms M remained at X’s risk until they came into her physical possession (or a person she identified to take possession). The parcel containing the items sent to Ms M by X’s courier, were delivered to her property but they weren’t, for example, handed to her or to someone else authorised by her to receive the delivery. Ms M hadn’t asked X to leave the parcel in a safe place. And she doesn’t seem to have given X any other similar instructions such as leaving the parcel with a neighbour. Whilst I’ve noted X’s ‘frequently asked questions’ gives various advice for customers who may not be in

-- 1 of 3 --

when the delivery arrives including that it could be left in a ‘safe place’, the CRA can’t be contracted out of. So, as Ms M said she deliberately avoided the options that were available to her such as requesting the parcel should be left in a safe place if she wasn’t available to take possession of it, I think the risk remained with X until it came into Ms M’s physical possession (or someone authorised by her). The remaining dispute is over whether Ms M suffered a loss. Ms M says her parcel was simply left behind an unlocked gate which led into her garden, and she says this could easily be seen from the street. The photo’s I’ve seen are a little unclear on this point. The parcel does look like it was behind a gate but it’s not clear whether the parcel itself could be seen from the street. FP says that the gate looked to be around six feet tall and in its view, the parcel was out of view. But it's plausible where a parcel is left unattended behind an unlocked gate for a certain amount of time that a third party not authorised by the intended recipient could’ve taken it. Based on everything I’ve seen, it’s difficult for me to conclude that Ms M (or someone authorised by her) actually received the parcel. It’s not disputed that the gate wasn’t locked (or lockable). Further, the garden appears to have been accessible from the street. And it’s also not disputed that the parcel was left unattended (i.e. not in Ms M’s physical possession). FP doesn’t think Ms M has shown sufficient evidence to show she didn’t receive the parcel. FP has pointed to Ms M's comments about CCTV evidence, where she said it wasn’t her role to carry out surveillance for the courier company’s negligence. FP said this statement amounted to Ms M refusing to provide this evidence as part of her claim. I appreciate Ms M raised objections about being asked to provide CCTV. But this simply could’ve been because she didn’t have it. I’ve also noted some inconsistencies in what she said for her camera not working such as it being due to the time of day (i.e. after dusk which it wasn’t) and also the fact the courier didn’t ring the bell itself which she says can lead to it not working. The fact is Ms M, as far as I know, isn’t an expert in doorbell ring cameras and may not know the true reason for her camera not working. Crucially though she has been consistent in saying she doesn't have CCTV footage to show what happened to the parcel. Further, it’s not clear to me that a doorbell camera at the front of her house would’ve shown who picked up the parcel from the side of her house. I’ve also considered what FP has said about other deliveries to Ms M’s address where claims for loss have been made. But FP has confirmed that these deliveries weren’t addressed to Ms M. And said this wasn’t one of the reasons it declined the claim in any event. In the round, I still don't think FP has done enough to show Ms M received the package. And because of section 75, FP is responsible for covering the loss. Ms M has said she wants compensation for the amount of time she has put into this matter. However, in this case, she was seeking to make, what is, in effect, a legal claim for breach of contract. There will always be some level of inconvenience when seeking to settle a claim of this nature. I think FP asked reasonable questions throughout this matter. And it didn’t delay in responding to Ms M. So, I don’t think FP has to do more than refund Ms M the amounts set out below. Ms M has also asked if she could receive a refund for all the items in the parcel but for the reasons set out above, I don’t think FP, under section 75 would be liable to pay her for anything that was £100 or less. Overall, I remain of the view that FP should refund Ms M for the items she said she didn’t receive that were over £100. I won’t be asking FP to do anything more to put things right. I appreciate this is not the outcome Ms M was hoping for. As noted above, my role is to look at things informally. So, if Ms M disagrees, she can reject my decision and pursue matters by alternative means if she wants, such as court (seeking appropriate advice in the process).

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that I’m partly upholding this complaint, and I require Frasers Group Financial Services Limited trading as Frasers Plus to rework Ms M’s account as if the £373 refund had been credited on 29 July 2025, which is the date it declined the claim. If that puts the account into any periods of credit, Frasers Group Financial Services Limited trading as Frasers Plus should pay Ms M interest at an annual rate of 8% simple on the credit balance between then and when it settles this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms M to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Yolande Mcleod Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --