The Financial Ombudsman Service uphold claim against Hitachi Capital Finance
For mis-sold aquashield roof & wall treatment awarding £8,360.38 to client.
Hitachi capital finance had offered the client a refund of £4,269.94. However, without admitting liability arguing that the client had not provided sufficient evidence. To prove that aquashield made misrepresentations and breached its contract. Consumer reclaim advised the client to reject the offer referring the claim to the financial ombudsman.
Hitachi capital finance had argued that the client needed to provide energy bills for 12 months. Prior to the roof and walls being treated. In addition, 12 months after to establish if there had been any reduction in energy consumption. Consumer reclaim argued that they had supplied sufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate that the product cannot prevent heat loss and that comparing energy bills is a non conclusive method in analysing the energy efficiency of any product. The financial ombudsman service agreed with consumer reclaim. Energy bills would not be sufficient enough on their own to prove whether or not the product prevented heat loss. There are too many other factors and variables that can contribute to energy usage. FOS also stated that they were satisfied that the evidence supplied by consumer reclaim concluded that the product was not fit for purpose.