Creation Consumer Finance Limited · DRN-6226348

The complaint Mrs F complains about a credit agreement taken out in her name with Creation Consumer Finance Limited. Throughout her complaint, Mrs F has been represented by a member of her family. But, for ease, I’ll just refer to Mrs F. What happened In January 2024, Mrs F went to a retailer, who I’ll call “X”, and bought several items costing a total of £1,392.40. She says she intended to use a gift card to pay for part of the balance and a Direct Debit to pay for the remainder. However, at the time of the transaction, X brokered a credit agreement in Mrs F’s name with Creation. And the facility was used to pay for the items Mrs F bought from X. Under the agreement, Mrs F was scheduled to make monthly repayments of around £180 over a period of one year. The balance could be repaid within the first ten months of the agreement without incurring any interest. After that time, interest was added to the balance, meaning Mr F could be required to pay a total of about £2,100. At the end of 2024, Mrs F says she became aware of the agreement and repaid the balance to avoid further interest charges and adverse information on her credit file. But, she says she didn’t authorise the opening of the credit agreement. So, Mrs F complained to Creation and asked them to refund the interest she had paid. In their final response to Mrs F’s complaint, Creation said they weren’t responsible for X’s actions. And as the credit facility hadn’t been closed by X, they didn’t see a reason to refund the interest accrued on the balance. Creation said that as Mrs F received the goods and had repaid the balance of the account, they didn’t think they had made an error. Mrs F didn’t accept Creation’s response and brought her complaint to this service. One of our investigators looked into Mrs F’s case and found that Creation were responsible for X’s actions during the sale of the finance agreement. But, the investigator was persuaded that Mrs F authorised the opening of the facility. So, he said it was fair for Creation to hold Mrs F responsible for the balance of the account and the interest charged. Mrs F didn’t agree with the investigator’s findings and said she always pays for items in cash, even when offered credit. Mrs F also said she only paid the balance of the account, to avoid any negative consequences to her credit file. The investigator didn’t change his conclusions and Mrs F’s complaint has now been passed to me to make a final 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

I want to acknowledge where I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this and it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I’m required to decide matters quickly and with minimum formality. But, I want to assure Mrs F and Creation that I’ve reviewed everything on file. And 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. Where the evidence is incomplete or inconclusive, as some of it is here, I reach my decision on the balance of probabilities. In other words, what I consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the available evidence and the wider circumstances. This case is about an application for a credit agreement with Creation, which is a regulated financial product. As such, we are able to consider complaints about it. There are a few possibilities that might give Creation a proper basis for holding Mrs F responsible for the balance due under the conditional sale agreement. They are: • Mrs F took out the agreement herself. • A third party took out the agreement on Mrs F’s behalf, with her actual or apparent authority. Under Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Creation is responsible for how the finance product is sold by the retailer in its capacity as a credit broker. So, I have thought about the evidence and if it supports Mrs F’s view that she was misled about how she was paying for the goods. Mrs F has told us that she bought and received the goods from X. So, there’s no dispute about the sale of the actual items supplied by X. And, it follows that it’s right that Mrs F pays for those items. Additionally, Mrs F has explained that she intended to use a gift card to pay for part of the cost of the items, and then use a Direct Debit to settle the remaining balance. From looking at Mrs F’s correspondence with all the parties, it’s unclear if Mrs F meant a direct payment using her debit card, or an instruction to her bankers, to authorise a request for a monthly payment to X. Regardless of what Mrs F may have meant here, I cannot see where the gift card was used to pay for part of the total cost of the items. Or, where Mrs F has attempted a follow up single payment for the balance she owed to X. So, I’m not persuaded Mrs F meant to pay in full for the items she bought from X, directly at the point of sale. I accept where Mrs F says she pays for her purchases in cash and I can see where she did this, around the time she bought the items from X. Indeed, it seems Mrs F didn’t rely on interest free credit deals, for the other purchases that were of high value with other retailers. I can also see where Mrs F hasn’t alleged that a third party had arranged to buy the items from X, in her name without her authority. Creation have shown us where the credit agreement forms required several details related to Mrs F’s personal and financial circumstances. I can see where through X, Creation has Mrs F’s correct contact details and information about her bank account. Furthermore, I can see where the credit agreement carries an electronic signature, a timestamp and where a welcome letter was sent to Mrs F shortly after the goods were purchased. The records sent to us by Creation also show where Mrs F didn’t dispute the credit facility for

-- 2 of 3 --

nearly a year, despite having the items in her possession. And that this contact was mainly to dispute the interest charged, rather than the facility itself. Although I acknowledge that Mrs F was generally unhappy with her treatment by X, particularly by the staff at the store. Having weighed up all the evidence, I think the account opening correspondence and where the outstanding payment for the goods for nearly a year are persuasive. I also think where Mrs F accepts she received the items from X, and the absence of a third party acting against her wishes is relevant. On balance, I don’t think X has made a mistake, or there has been an attempt to fraudulently deprive Mrs F of the goods. Overall, I’m persuaded it’s reasonable for Creation to have concluded that Mrs F gave her actual or apparent authority for the start of the credit agreement. So, I think it’s fair for Creation to hold Mrs F responsible for the repayment of the balance of the account. Consequently, I don’t think it would be fair for me to require Creation to refund the interest Mrs F has paid under the agreement. All the evidence we have suggests Mrs F has settled the agreement and there is nothing outstanding for her to pay. However, I’m aware Mrs F was concerned about the impact on her credit file. Should Mrs F have any queries about the balance of the agreement, then I remind Creation of their responsibility to help Mrs F with her enquires. 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 Mrs F to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Sam Wedderburn Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --