Section 75 small print

MyRealNameToo

A_Geordie said:

I believe the FOS has on regular occasion rejected claims from additional cardholders and I think this point has now been settled by the Court of Appeal in Cooper v The Freedom Travel Group and Bank of Scotland Plc (trading as Halifax) back in 2022.

As always with the FOS, each case is looked at individually. There has been at least one case where the ombudsman accepted it was a joint purchase that just happened to be made on the additional cardholders card and they upheld the complaint against the bank who'd argued it was her purchase. 

Certainly been more where they decided the purchase was by the secondary cardholder and therefore not the debtor. 

A_Geordie

I assume that FOS case your referring to involves Tesco Personal Finance? This is why I said in my last paragraph it is fact specific.

I'm not particularly convinced that decision would be upheld from letter of the law perspective had it gone to court, and as much as I dislike the FOS its borderline cases like this that might be more beneficial going down the FOS route than the legal one since the FOS has a bit more rope when making their decisions and how they arrive at them. 

MyRealNameToo

Absolutely, and the FOS often goes to great pains to point out they're legally obliged to find "fair" outcomes and are not required to find the same outcome that a court would have. I do find it therefore slightly odd that they go on to state that they are neutral as quiet clearly they are at least slightly customer leaning... not to a massive extent but enough to say they arent neutral