Section 75 dispute – veranda gutter installed level against manual, RICS surveyor confirms defect

Bababoo2014

Hello all,

I’m looking for advice on a Section 75 dispute I’ve been dealing with.

I purchased a high-spec veranda part fundep through finance. The main issue is that the 5m gutter has been installed level (with a dip in the centre), which restricts water flow to the downpipe. The manufacturer’s manual clearly states the gutter must slant towards the downpipe, and this requirement is also in line with Building Regulations.

To be sure, I instructed an independent chartered building surveyor (RICS, 30+ years’ experience) who confirmed that the veranda has clear defects in its design and/or installation. A full copy of the report has been provided to both the retailer and the finance company.

The retailer continues to deny any fault, claiming it’s a “normal characteristic.” Yet they offered a modification (an additional downpipe at the other end of the gutter) then a 2nd modification (a custom made plastic internal gutter to sit inside the structured aluminium one) and a £1,500 “goodwill” gesture once the finance company became involved – which, to me, only reinforces that they know it isn’t performing as it should.

I submitted my Section 75 claim to the finance company over 12 weeks ago, but despite all the evidence, they still haven’t fulfilled their obligations. I’ve now given them a deadline, after which I will escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

My questions are:

• Has anyone here been through a similar Section 75 dispute where independent expert evidence was ignored?
• Is there anything more I can do to push the finance company to act before involving the Ombudsman?

Thanks in advance for any advice or shared experiences.

eskbanker

Bababoo2014 said:

I submitted my Section 75 claim to the finance company over 12 weeks ago, but despite all the evidence, they still haven’t fulfilled their obligations. I’ve now given them a deadline, after which I will escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

My questions are:

• Has anyone here been through a similar Section 75 dispute where independent expert evidence was ignored?
• Is there anything more I can do to push the finance company to act before involving the Ombudsman?

Has the finance company indicated any issue with the expert evidence or are you referring to the retailer being unconvinced?  Unfortunately there isn't a specific timeframe within which section 75 claims must be dealt with, so 'giving them a deadline' isn't really meaningful, but you could raise a complaint about the time they're taking, and if that's not addressed adequately within eight weeks, you then have the right to go to FOS.

TELLIT01

The OP seems to be suggesting that the independent survey shows defects with the verandah itself, not just the gutter.  Is that the case?  Simply looking for clarification.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Bababoo2014 said:

• Is there anything more I can do to push the finance company to act before involving the Ombudsman?

Section 75 just holds the credit provider jointly liable, you don't have to use their processes, you can send a letter before action and file through small claims. 

As this is a service burden of proof will be upon yourself so ensure you have an expert opinion to show the service (of installation) wasn't carried out with due care and skill (including why and what needs to be done to correct it), get the guttering fixed for the best rate (doesn't have to be cheapest but shouldn't be ott either) and claim that cost as damages.  

MyRealNameToo

Bababoo2014 said:

Hello all,

I’m looking for advice on a Section 75 dispute I’ve been dealing with.

I purchased a high-spec veranda part fundep through finance. The main issue is that the 5m gutter has been installed level (with a dip in the centre), which restricts water flow to the downpipe. The manufacturer’s manual clearly states the gutter must slant towards the downpipe, and this requirement is also in line with Building Regulations.

To be sure, I instructed an independent chartered building surveyor (RICS, 30+ years’ experience) who confirmed that the veranda has clear defects in its design and/or installation. A full copy of the report has been provided to both the retailer and the finance company.

The retailer continues to deny any fault, claiming it’s a “normal characteristic.” Yet they offered a modification (an additional downpipe at the other end of the gutter) then a 2nd modification (a custom made plastic internal gutter to sit inside the structured aluminium one) and a £1,500 “goodwill” gesture once the finance company became involved – which, to me, only reinforces that they know it isn’t performing as it should.

I submitted my Section 75 claim to the finance company over 12 weeks ago, but despite all the evidence, they still haven’t fulfilled their obligations. I’ve now given them a deadline, after which I will escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

My questions are:

• Has anyone here been through a similar Section 75 dispute where independent expert evidence was ignored?
• Is there anything more I can do to push the finance company to act before involving the Ombudsman?

Thanks in advance for any advice or shared experiences.

You can only register a complaint with the FOS after you have already logged a complaint with the FS company and either they have provided you a final response or 8 weeks have passed since the complaint has logged. 

If you go to the FOS before either of these matters then the FOS will simply send a stock letter to the FS company which the advisor has 3 lines in which to summarise your complaint and having seen many of these in the past their summaries are not always on point. The FOS will then do nothing more until you come back to them after the proper timelines have passed. 

From what you have said, you haven't actually complained to them yet and so threatening them with the FOS is pointless and highlights that you dont know what you are doing. 

There is no timeline for a S75 and so just comes under general requirements to be reasonably prompt. Given banks pay S75 out of their own pocket it inevitably takes more investigation time than a Chargeback which is a very basic process and normally paid for by the merchant. 

What is the estimate to fix the problem? Just adjusting some guttering doesnt sound the most expensive job in the world and the merchant has already offered £1,500 so what's the shortfall? 

Bababoo2014

Thanks everyone for your replies – much appreciated. Just to clarify where I’m at:

We first raised the issue with the retailer back in December 2024. The problem is that the gutter on our £28k glass veranda has been fitted level instead of with the required slant. The manufacturer’s own fitting manual states the gutter must “slant 7°–15° towards the downpipe”, but ours has been installed level, creating a dip that restricts the water flow.

After months of going back and forth, we provided clear evidence including photos, the manufacturer’s manual, and an independent RICS chartered surveyor’s report (30+ years’ experience) which confirmed defects in design and/or installation. Despite this, the retailer has denied any fault.

We lodged a Section 75 complaint with Omni Capital (part of Castle Trust Bank) on 13 June 2025. They acknowledged it as a formal claim, investigated, and have now issued their final response – aligning with the retailer’s position and repeating that the veranda is “within tolerance.” They did offer a plastic inner gutter and £1,500 “goodwill,” but that isn’t in line with the manual or expert evidence.

Given their stance, we’ve rejected the offer and have now submitted our case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for review.

eskbanker said:

Bababoo2014 said:

I submitted my Section 75 claim to the finance company over 12 weeks ago, but despite all the evidence, they still haven’t fulfilled their obligations. I’ve now given them a deadline, after which I will escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

My questions are:

• Has anyone here been through a similar Section 75 dispute where independent expert evidence was ignored?
• Is there anything more I can do to push the finance company to act before involving the Ombudsman?

Has the finance company indicated any issue with the expert evidence or are you referring to the retailer being unconvinced?  Unfortunately there isn't a specific timeframe within which section 75 claims must be dealt with, so 'giving them a deadline' isn't really meaningful, but you could raise a complaint about the time they're taking, and if that's not addressed adequately within eight weeks, you then have the right to go to FOS.

The finance company (Omni, part of Castle Trust Bank) haven’t actually disputed the independent evidence itself – that’s come from the retailer, who continue to insist it’s “within specification” despite not providing any documentation to support that. The expert surveyor’s report (30+ years’ experience, RICS member) is clear: the gutter was installed level instead of with the required 7–15° slant towards the downpipe, which restricts water flow.

You’re right about Section 75 not having a strict statutory timeframe. However, I did raise a formal complaint with Omni, received their final response, and now have escalated to the FOS, which is the correct route. My “deadline” was more about setting expectations than trying to impose a legal time limit.

Thanks  for your input – it’s very helpful while navigating this.

TELLIT01 said:

The OP seems to be suggesting that the independent survey shows defects with the verandah itself, not just the gutter.  Is that the case?  Simply looking for clarification.

Thanks for asking — happy to clarify.

The independent RICS surveyor highlighted defects in the installation, specifically the gutter. The gutter has been fitted level instead of with the required fall. The manufacturer’s manual clearly states it must “slant 7°–15° towards the downpipe”. Because it’s level, a slight dip has formed in the middle, restricting water flow and causing the pooling/splashing issues we’ve been experiencing.

So, it’s not that the veranda system itself is inherently defective, but rather that it hasn’t been installed with the proper skill and care in line with the product’s technical standards.

MyRealNameToo said:

Bababoo2014 said:

Hello all,

I’m looking for advice on a Section 75 dispute I’ve been dealing with.

I purchased a high-spec veranda part fundep through finance. The main issue is that the 5m gutter has been installed level (with a dip in the centre), which restricts water flow to the downpipe. The manufacturer’s manual clearly states the gutter must slant towards the downpipe, and this requirement is also in line with Building Regulations.

To be sure, I instructed an independent chartered building surveyor (RICS, 30+ years’ experience) who confirmed that the veranda has clear defects in its design and/or installation. A full copy of the report has been provided to both the retailer and the finance company.

The retailer continues to deny any fault, claiming it’s a “normal characteristic.” Yet they offered a modification (an additional downpipe at the other end of the gutter) then a 2nd modification (a custom made plastic internal gutter to sit inside the structured aluminium one) and a £1,500 “goodwill” gesture once the finance company became involved – which, to me, only reinforces that they know it isn’t performing as it should.

I submitted my Section 75 claim to the finance company over 12 weeks ago, but despite all the evidence, they still haven’t fulfilled their obligations. I’ve now given them a deadline, after which I will escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

My questions are:

• Has anyone here been through a similar Section 75 dispute where independent expert evidence was ignored?
• Is there anything more I can do to push the finance company to act before involving the Ombudsman?

Thanks in advance for any advice or shared experiences.

You can only register a complaint with the FOS after you have already logged a complaint with the FS company and either they have provided you a final response or 8 weeks have passed since the complaint has logged. 

If you go to the FOS before either of these matters then the FOS will simply send a stock letter to the FS company which the advisor has 3 lines in which to summarise your complaint and having seen many of these in the past their summaries are not always on point. The FOS will then do nothing more until you come back to them after the proper timelines have passed. 

From what you have said, you haven't actually complained to them yet and so threatening them with the FOS is pointless and highlights that you dont know what you are doing. 

There is no timeline for a S75 and so just comes under general requirements to be reasonably prompt. Given banks pay S75 out of their own pocket it inevitably takes more investigation time than a Chargeback which is a very basic process and normally paid for by the merchant. 

What is the estimate to fix the problem? Just adjusting some guttering doesnt sound the most expensive job in the world and the merchant has already offered £1,500 so what's the shortfall? 

Thanks for your reply – just to clarify, I have followed the correct process.

• Issue first raised with the retailer (Dec 2024).
• Formal complaint lodged (May 2025).
• Final response from retailer (June 2025) – denied fault, offered only a second downpipe.
• Section 75 claim with Omni submitted (June 2025).
• Final response from Omni (Aug 2025) – denied fault, offered £1,500 + plastic gutter.

I’ve now submitted the case to the FOS with all supporting evidence.

The independent surveyor (30+ yrs’ experience, RICS member) confirmed the gutter was installed level when the manual clearly states it must slant 7–15° towards the downpipe. Putting this right means dismantling/reinstalling the structure – far more than just “adjusting some guttering.”

That’s why the £1,500 offer is inadequate, especially when it also had to cover the cost of the report.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Bababoo2014 said:

• Is there anything more I can do to push the finance company to act before involving the Ombudsman?

Section 75 just holds the credit provider jointly liable, you don't have to use their processes, you can send a letter before action and file through small claims. 

As this is a service burden of proof will be upon yourself so ensure you have an expert opinion to show the service (of installation) wasn't carried out with due care and skill (including why and what needs to be done to correct it), get the guttering fixed for the best rate (doesn't have to be cheapest but shouldn't be ott either) and claim that cost as damages.  

Thanks for this – you’re absolutely right that Section 75 makes the credit provider jointly liable. In my case, I’ve already taken the formal route: raised with the retailer, then Omni (the credit provider), received their final response, and have now escalated to the FOS.

I do have the expert evidence – an independent chartered building surveyor (30+ years’ experience, RICS member) confirmed the gutter has been installed level when the manufacturer’s manual requires a 7–15° slant towards the downpipe. The report also sets out what needs to be done to put it right, which would mean dismantling and reinstalling, not just a small tweak.

So the burden of proof is covered, and while small claims could be an option, we felt the FOS route was the fairest way forward given the finance company’s obligations under Section 75.

MyRealNameToo

Bababoo2014 said:

Thanks for your reply – just to clarify, I have followed the correct process.
Issue first raised with the retailer (Dec 2024).
Formal complaint lodged (May 2025).
Final response from retailer (June 2025) – denied fault, offered only a second downpipe.
Section 75 claim with Omni submitted (June 2025).
Final response from Omni (Aug 2025) – denied fault, offered £1,500 + plastic gutter. I’ve now submitted the case to the FOS with all supporting evidence.

There is nothing in there about you raising a complaint about their decision on the S75 claim? 

The letter from Omni this month, if its a final response to a complaint it will clear state in the later section of the letter that you have the right to go to the Financial Ombudsman. Does yours say this?

From what you say you've simply received their decision on the claim and have skipped the complain about their decision so the ombudsman won't look at it. 

Did your expert report include a cost estimate for fixing it?

Bababoo2014

MyRealNameToo said:

Bababoo2014 said:

Thanks for your reply – just to clarify, I have followed the correct process.
Issue first raised with the retailer (Dec 2024).
Formal complaint lodged (May 2025).
Final response from retailer (June 2025) – denied fault, offered only a second downpipe.
Section 75 claim with Omni submitted (June 2025).
Final response from Omni (Aug 2025) – denied fault, offered £1,500 + plastic gutter. I’ve now submitted the case to the FOS with all supporting evidence.

There is nothing in there about you raising a complaint about their decision on the S75 claim? 

The letter from Omni this month, if its a final response to a complaint it will clear state in the later section of the letter that you have the right to go to the Financial Ombudsman. Does yours say this?

From what you say you've simply received their decision on the claim and have skipped the complain about their decision so the ombudsman won't look at it. 

Did your expert report include a cost estimate for fixing it?

Thank you for raising this point — it’s helpful to clarify.

Omni’s letter did state their position was a “firm and final offer”, so I’ve treated that as their final response. I understand that normally a business should point out the right to go to the Ombudsman, but even without that wording the FOS can still take the case on once a final stance has been given or 8 weeks have passed I understand. 

In my case, I’d already gone through the retailer’s complaints process, then raised the Section 75 claim with Omni back in June. After months of back and forth, Omni have now given me what they say is their final position. That’s why I’ve escalated to the FOS.

My independent RICS surveyor confirmed the gutter was installed incorrectly, though the report didn’t include a repair cost estimate. To support that, I also provided the manufacturer’s installation manual, which clearly specifies the gutter should be sloped 7–15° to the downpipe. Instead, it was fitted level, which is why water is pooling.

At this stage the priority is establishing liability, and then hopefully a fair resolution can follow.

Thanks again for helping me think about it.