Metro Bank PLC · DRN-6038760

The complaint Mr P is unhappy Metro Bank PLC hasn’t upheld his claim for a refund on his credit card under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (S75 CCA). What happened Mr P bought 11 radiators from an online retailer, who I’ll refer to as R, in April 2024. He paid around £3,900 in total, using his Metro Bank credit card. R delivered the radiators in June 2024 and Mr P says he arranged for a plumber with significant experience to install them over the next few months. He also arranged for a third-party company to install a new boiler. Around October 2024, Mr P says he noticed brown stains on the welded joints of one radiator, which indicated the inhibitor liquid in the system was leaking. Mr P complained to R about the radiator. During the dispute, Mr P spoke to both R and the UK importer for the radiators, A – but to keep things simple, I’ll only refer to R as the party Mr P was emailing about his dispute. Mr P says R initially argued the radiator hadn’t been installed correctly by the plumber. After Mr P disputed this, R agreed to replace the radiator – and Mr P says he paid for his plumber to swap the radiators. However, Mr P says the same thing happened to four more radiators in early 2025, all showing similar leaks on welded joints. Mr P complained again to R who said the exact radiators Mr P had ordered were no longer manufactured, but it could replace them with similar models of a different depth. Mr P wasn’t happy with this option as he wanted the radiators to match in the house. So R offered to refund him around £1,500 for the cost of the four radiators it couldn’t replace. Mr P says he accepted the refund, but as he didn’t trust the remaining radiators were fault-free, and more leaks appeared, he paid over £6,000 for new radiators from another supplier in July 2025. As Mr P remained unhappy with R’s response, he complained to Metro Bank in June 2025, asking it to refund him under S75 CCA. Mr P says Metro Bank hung up on him twice when he was trying to raise the claim, and Metro Bank offered Mr P £100 to apologise for the customer service he received. But Metro Bank didn’t uphold the claim. It said R acted as a third-party seller of the goods, and it thought they were supplied and manufactured by A. It therefore didn’t think there was a valid relationship between the parties for Mr P to claim under S75 CCA. As Metro Bank didn’t review its stance when Mr P complained, he asked our service to review things. Our Investigator thought there was a valid relationship between the parties to allow Mr P to make the claim, but she didn’t think there was enough evidence to show the radiators had a manufacturing defect. She said there also wasn’t enough evidence the radiators had been misrepresented or mis-sold by R. She explained Mr P’s dispute started outside the timescales for Metro Bank to consider a chargeback, and while he had received some poor customer service, Metro Bank had already fairly compensated him for this.

-- 1 of 4 --

Mr P didn’t agree with the Investigator’s opinion. He said the Italian manufacturer couldn’t demonstrate the radiators met the EN 442 certification required, and as R had displayed the certification on its website he considered this misrepresentation. He said his plumber had significant experience and he was confident there was nothing wrong with the way the radiators had been installed. Mr P said R no longer sell the radiators and he found evidence online suggesting other retailers had withdrawn them because of similar faults to the ones he experienced. As the Investigator didn’t think this information changed their opinion, the case was passed to me for 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. Having done so, I agree with the outcome reached by the Investigator – and I’ll explain why. Mr P has made several detailed points in his complaint. I’ve considered everything he’s said and all the information on the file. But in my decision, I do not intend to refer to everything or address every point made. I mean no discourtesy by this, instead I will focus on what I see as being the key outstanding points following the Investigator’s outcome, and the reasons for making my decision. Where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory (as some of it is here), I’ve reached 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. Metro Bank is a different business to the online retailer, so I can’t hold it responsible for everything that may have gone wrong. Instead, S75 CCA allows a borrower under a credit agreement to make a like claim against the credit provider if there’s a breach of contract or misrepresentation by the supplier of the goods. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) also implies terms into the contract. This sets out that goods must be of satisfactory quality and as described. The debtor-creditor-supplier relationship There are certain conditions to be met for a valid claim to be considered under S75 CCA, and Metro Bank says it doesn’t think these have been met here. It argues that R acts as an online third-party provider, and the radiators were manufactured and supplied by A. So, it says there isn’t a valid debtor-creditor-supplier relationship for the transaction. But I disagree. I’ve reviewed the terms and conditions of R’s website, and it makes reference to being the supplier of the goods ordered. The invoice for Mr P’s order was from R and makes no reference to the radiators being supplied by A. Also, Mr P’s payment was made to R according to the credit card statement. Overall, I’m persuaded that while R was sourcing the radiators from A, it acted as the supplier for the transaction in dispute.

-- 2 of 4 --

S75 CCA claim I’ve therefore moved on to consider if I think Metro Bank ought to have upheld Mr P’s S75 CCA claim, if it had considered things further. In order for me to say the claim should have been upheld, I would need to be persuaded there has been a breach of contract by R when it supplied the goods to Mr P. I’ve considered whether the evidence supports the goods were of unsatisfactory quality or not as described, as set out in the CRA. It isn’t enough for the goods to be faulty, instead I’d expect to see enough evidence to show the problem is due to a fault or defect that was present or developing at the time of supply. I don’t think it’s in dispute that some of the radiators Mr P purchased developed leaks, as R agreed with this and provided a partial refund. Mr P received a replacement radiator and a refund covering four radiators in the order. I think this means R provided Mr P with a remedy that was in line with his rights set out in the CRA. So, I’ve focussed on whether Mr P would be entitled to a refund for the remaining radiators R didn’t replace or refund. While Mr P has given detailed testimony about the nature of the leaks and why he thinks they occurred, he hasn’t provided supporting evidence that the remaining units were of unsatisfactory quality, for example, a report from a suitable expert. Mr P also says he offered R the chance to inspect the radiators in person but it declined this offer. But given the circumstances of the claim, I think Metro Bank would’ve expected him to arrange the supporting evidence for his S75 CCA claim. I say this because Mr P arranged for his own plumber to install the radiators, and for another company to install the connected boiler. The radiators started to show leaks over a period of several months, with some not leaking at all. In R’s correspondence with Mr P, it mentions the importance of the pipework being correct to ensure the radiators operate correctly. While Mr P has explained why he considers they were installed to standard, neither Metro Bank nor myself are experts. So I think it would have been reasonable for Metro Bank to rely on an expert opinion about the cause of the leaks in the radiators alongside other evidence Mr P could provide. As Mr P says he replaced all the radiators in July 2025, I don’t think it’s possible for him to provide further supporting evidence for his claim. I understand Mr P says Metro Bank took a long time to review the claim and hadn’t supported him with the dispute. The relevant regulations say lenders should respond to a S75 CCA claim within a reasonable period of time. I’ve found Mr P ordered the new radiators within one month of submitting the claim to Metro Bank, so it may not have been possible for Mr P to provide an inspection or report, even if Metro Bank had asked for one at the time. Mr P says he’s seen similar testimonies and stories about the radiators online, supporting his claim. He adds that they are no longer made and the manufacturer was relatively new to producing radiators. I’ve considered what Mr P says here, but I don’t think this is the sort of evidence I would have expected Metro Bank to consider as it doesn’t relate to the exact circumstances of the transaction in dispute. I’ve also thought about whether R misrepresented or mis-sold the radiators to Mr P, because he says the manufacturer hasn’t been able to produce the EN 442 certification when requested. I’ve looked at the emails R sent Mr P before he placed the order, containing details of the radiators. The emails list specifications for the model, but don’t confirm what certification they meet, if any. So, I don’t think R made a deliberately false statement in the emails available to me.

-- 3 of 4 --

Mr P says R’s website led him to think the radiators met the EN 442 certification, and I think it’s possible this was the case. I say this because A’s own website for the radiators says the range meets this certification. But, crucially, I’ve not seen evidence to persuade me this is untrue and the radiators supplied to Mr P didn’t conform to this standard. It can be difficult to prove a negative, but I think it’s likely an expert inspection would’ve considered the safety and certifications of the radiators, had this been conducted. Overall, I’m sympathetic to Mr P’s situation, as I can appreciate it’s been a very frustrating experience for him. And I’m not saying something hasn’t gone wrong here. My role is to consider whether Metro Bank has treated him fairly when rejecting his claim. While I think Metro Bank ought to have found the dispute met the criteria for a S75 CCA claim to be raised, I don’t think this would have resulted in a more positive outcome than R had already offered Mr P. As R has paid the refund it offered to Mr P, I don’t think Metro Bank needs to do anything further for the S75 CCA claim. Other considerations As Mr P paid for the radiators on a credit card, Metro Bank looked at whether he could receive a refund through a chargeback claim. As the claim was made more than 120 days after the goods were delivered to Mr P, Metro Bank says it was too late to raise the chargeback with the card scheme. I’ve looked at the circumstances and the relevant card scheme rules, and I agree that on this occasion, Mr P wouldn’t have been within the timescales to request a chargeback. So, I don’t think Metro Bank treated Mr P unfairly here. Mr P is also unhappy with the way Metro Bank supported him when he tried to raise the dispute. He says he was hung up on twice and didn’t receive updates on his claim or complaint. Metro Bank also sent him a letter referring to a fraud claim, rather than a S75 CCA claim. I’m sorry to hear Mr P experienced poor customer service, and how it added to his stress and worry. Metro Bank has paid Mr P £100 to reflect the problems raising the claim, and while it then made a further error handling the claim, I think the amount it already paid is in line with what I would have awarded overall. So, I don’t think Metro Bank needs to do more to put things right. 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 17 April 2026. Hannah Dunkley Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --