Nationwide Building Society · DRN-6225290

The complaint Mr S has complained about Nationwide Building Society (Nationwide) declining a claim for money back. What happened The parties are familiar with the background details of this complaint – so, I’ll only briefly summarise them here. It reflects my role of resolving disputes quickly with minimum formality. In May 2024, Mr S made a lump sum payment to a merchant, who I’ll refer to as R, using his Nationwide credit card for an annual breakdown membership. In November 2024, Mr S called R for assistance as his vehicle wouldn’t start. R attended the breakdown. The engineer thought there was a problem with the battery. So, they offered to replace it. But Mr S declined to pay for a new battery. Instead, Mr S wanted R to recover his vehicle to a place of his choosing. But R declined to do so as they had managed to get the vehicle started. Mr S believes R breached the terms and conditions of his breakdown membership because they should have recovered his vehicle given the engineer hadn’t carried out any form of repair following an incorrect diagnosis of the fault. Mr S later found the issue with his vehicle was caused by three of the four glow plugs being non-functional. Mr S says being forced to drive home resulted in him experiencing distress and anxiety due to the fear of him being left stranded if the engine had cut out and he’d been unable to get it started again. R responded by saying they had acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the breakdown cover Mr S had bought in May 2024. Unhappy with R’s response, Mr S asked the Financial Ombudsman to consider the matter. However, we informed Mr S we didn’t have the power to do so as his complaint against R didn’t involve a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulated activity - certain types of breakdown insurance are excluded under FSMA (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 FSMA (Regulated Activities) Order 2001. In May 2025, Mr S raised a Section 75 claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (S75 CCA) with Nationwide. Nationwide responded by saying it appeared Mr S had received the service he’d paid for - and while this may not have met his expectations, they didn’t believe the evidence showed there had been any misrepresentation or breach of contract under S75 CCA. Unhappy with this final response, Mr S asked the Financial Ombudsman to consider the matter saying, in summary, that as R had failed to implement a repair, it meant they’d failed to provide the contracted services as they should have recovered his vehicle to a destination of his choice rather than forcing him to drive home. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They thought Nationwide had acted fairly when declining the S75 CCA claim as they didn’t think the evidence showed there had been any misrepresentation or breach of contract under S75 CCA. The Investigator also thought it was unlikely a chargeback would have succeeded had Nationwide looked to raise one. Mr S

-- 1 of 3 --

didn’t agree with the Investigator’s findings, so the complaint has come 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. Mr S has made several detailed points in his complaint including in the submissions he’s provided following the Investigator issuing their findings. But in my decision, I don’t 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. S75 CCA In certain circumstances, S75 CCA allows Mr S to hold Nationwide liable for a ‘like claim’ for breach of contract or misrepresentation in respect of an agreement with a supplier for goods or services which is funded by a credit card. In this instance, I think the requirements for Mr S raising a S75 claim were met. However, based on what I’ve seen, I don’t believe there was any misrepresentation or breach of contract by R. I’ll explain why as I appreciate Mr S has strong feelings about what happened and will likely be disappointed with this outcome. The mechanic who inspected Mr S’s vehicle thought the problem was being caused by a faulty battery. I appreciate this diagnosis was later proven to be incorrect. But this was what the mechanic believed in their professional judgement was likely preventing the engine from starting. I’m mindful the mechanic didn’t have access to the facilities and tools available at a garage. And I’ve not seen anything to show the mechanic ought reasonably to have determined at the roadside what the real issue was. It’s my understanding that determining this type of fault often involves the process of trial and error. I appreciate Mr S believes no repair was carried out at the roadside. But the mechanic had offered to replace the battery in the belief this would comprise of an effective repair. Mr S declined this offer because he didn’t want to pay for a new battery. In the circumstances, it seems replacing the battery wouldn’t have fixed the underlying issue. But this wasn’t to be known at the time. Of importance here, is that the mechanic was able to start the engine. It also seems the mechanic considered the vehicle was safe to drive and it was likely Mr S would be able to get home without any further issue. So, I appreciate why R didn’t think it was necessary for the vehicle to be recovered. Neither Nationwide nor the Financial Ombudsman are experts on vehicles and their maintenance. As such, I understand why Nationwide would have wanted to see more to show that the conclusions reached by the mechanic and the actions taken by R had been inappropriate and unreasonable. It’s reasonable that I make my decision based on what happened – not what potentially could have happened. It’s my understanding Mr S was able to drive his vehicle home without any further issues. However, I appreciate why Mr S may have been anxious about whether he would make it and been concerned about whether R would have provided any further assistance, and if so, how long he’d have needed to wait. This is understandable given I understand R paid Mr S £35 for the time it took them to attend the call out.

-- 2 of 3 --

R attended the breakdown. The mechanic diagnosed a potential cause for the vehicle failing to start and proposed a remedy – which Mr S declined. Irrespective of this, the mechanic was able to get the vehicle started. I’ve not seen anything to suggest the vehicle wasn’t safe to drive, so it seems there was no need for the vehicle to be recovered – Mr S was able to drive the vehicle home. In the circumstances, I think it was reasonable for Nationwide to conclude there hadn’t been any breach of contract in the service provided by R. So, I think Nationwide acted fairly when declining Mr S’s S75 CCA claim. Overall, I think Nationwide processed the S75 CCA claim correctly and in a timely manner without any undue delays. Chargeback A ‘chargeback’ is a way for a debit or credit card provider (Nationwide) to reclaim money from the merchant’s (R’s) bank where there are certain problems with the purchase of goods or services by a consumer (Mr S). It isn’t a legal right and there’s no guarantee the card provider will be able to recover the money this way. It’s a voluntary scheme and the process must follow the scheme rules – which are strict, and time limits apply. I’d only expect a business to raise a chargeback if it was possible to do so, and there was a reasonable chance of success. It doesn’t look like Nationwide was able to raise a chargeback because Mr S contacted them after the permitted time limit had expired – in most instances, a claim must be raised within 120 days of the service being provided. In any event, even if Mr S had contacted Nationwide sooner and there had been valid chargeback rights - which isn’t clear here - it’s unlikely a chargeback would have succeeded for much the same reasons as why the S75 CCA claim was unsuccessful. So, in the circumstances, I think Nationwide acted fairly when deciding not to raise a chargeback. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Carl Bibby Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --