Social Money Limited · DRN-6132184

The complaint Mr M complains about the way Social Money Limited trading as Payl8r (‘P8’) handled his claim for a refund. Mr M is being represented. Any references to Mr M will include any submissions or evidence provided by his representative. What happened During a job search, Mr M received an unsolicited call from a course provider I’ll refer to as ‘T’. Mr M passed the interview process with T and enrolled onto the course. He paid a deposit of just under £200 and financed the remaining amount with a loan from P8. The monthly repayments of £127.15 started in October 2024 and were to be paid over a period of eighteen months. Mr M passed the relevant exams by early 2025. After this, T’s career’s team contacted Mr M requesting various documents to aid the job search. It also arranged for Mr M to be sent details of a job placement. However, Mr M declined this offer as it involved working remotely. Mr M complained to T saying it was in breach of contract for several reasons including that: he wasn’t qualified so shouldn’t have been accepted on the course; he was told he’d be given a guaranteed work placement in a suitable location; certain software application(s) weren’t made available to him; his attempts to obtain support from T went unanswered; it took a long time to receive the results of his exams and he had to retake an exam(s) a number of times; and he wasn’t asked about any additional needs – Mr M has a disability and he doesn’t think T did enough to ensure the course was suitable for his particular needs. When T responded saying it had acted correctly, Mr M raised a claim against P8 under section 75 (‘section 75’) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘CCA’). P8 concluded T hadn’t breached its contract with Mr M citing several reasons including that: Mr M had successfully completed the course which is evidence T had delivered what it had promised; a work placement was arranged but Mr M declined this offer; Mr M’s additional support needs weren't disclosed at the time of enrolment so no adjustments were made for him; and T offered him support and the resources he was promised. Mr M complained about how P8 handled his claim and referred matters to us. Our investigator didn’t recommend upholding the complaint as she thought P8 had handled things correctly. Mr M disagreed with the investigator’s view and asked for an ombudsman’s decision on the matter. 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. Although a number of issues have been raised, this decision only addresses those issues I consider to be materially relevant to this complaint. This isn’t meant as a discourtesy to either

-- 1 of 3 --

party – it simply reflects the informal nature of our Service. Whilst I very much sympathise with Mr M’s situation in this case, I’m not upholding his complaint. I’ll explain why. Briefly summarised, section 75 of the CCA says that where a consumer uses certain types of credit – including the fixed sum loan in this case - to purchase goods and/or services and there’s a misrepresentation and/or breach of contract by the supplier (in this case T), the consumer will have a ‘like’ claim against the provider of finance (P8) as they would against the supplier. There are other conditions, but it’s not disputed they’re met in the circumstances of this complaint. To be clear, what I’m reviewing here is whether P8 has acted fairly in declining Mr M’s section 75 claim. In essence, I’m looking at the claims handling. I’m not a court so whilst I’ve had regard to the law including the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (to act with reasonable care and skill etc), I’m not making a finding on whether there has actually been a breach of contract. However, I do think P8 needs to fairly and reasonably conclude whether to accept liability under section 75 of the CCA. I appreciate Mr M didn’t pass the exams at the first try. But there are lots of reasons this could’ve happened and some of this could’ve been outside the control of T (for example the number of hours studied). Not passing the exams isn’t, by itself, evidence that the course wasn’t delivered with reasonable care and skill. Mr M says certain support from tutors wasn’t available to him. I understand Mr M’s frustration with some aspects of the course. However, many of the issues he raises are about the service itself such as the tutor not answering calls or delays in receiving his exam results. I’m not persuaded these issues by themselves amounted to a breach of the contractual terms. And from what I can see, Mr M was given sufficient tutor support throughout the course. He did receive the outcome of his exams and was able to re- take these within a reasonably short period. I think the communications between Mr M and T (and its staff) shows persuasive evidence of T offering Mr M support at the level promised under the contractual terms, which is what P8, not unreasonably in my view, concluded. Mr M says that T failed to provide the use of some software. However, as P8 said even if this was the case, Mr M was supported to the level where he was able to pass the exams and receive his certificate of achievement, so there was no detriment caused here. Whilst I appreciate there is some dispute as to whether T did, in fact, provide the relevant software as part of the course, I’ve seen persuasive evidence to show that T provided sufficient material to enable Mr M to pass the required exams. I note that Mr M says he wasn’t provided with a hard copy of his certificate. However, this appears to have come at a separate cost. I can’t see a hard copy version of the certificate was promised as part of the contract that was funded by P8’s loan agreement. Mr M doesn’t consider the course was suitable for him. He says part of this was due to his disability. Whilst I understand Mr M’s point here, from P8’s investigations which seem to be borne out by his own testimony (and that of his representative) he didn’t let T know about his disability. And this is why P8 said no adjustments were made for him by T. Further, Mr M went through an interview process and T deemed him suitable for this course. And given Mr M was able to pass the exams, this does suggest the assessment which led to T accepting him onto the course, was carried out with reasonable care and skill. I want to make it clear, I’m not making a finding on whether T breached any laws related to (for example) Mr M’s disability. That is beyond my remit here. As noted above, I’m considering how P8 handled his claim for breach of contract and/misrepresentation as part of its joint liability with T. And from what I can see, T carried out an assessment prior to Mr M being accepted onto the course. This was a course Mr M was able to pass with the level of support he was given. I don’t think P8 reached an unreasonable or unfair conclusion when it said it didn’t think T was in breach of contract when it decided to accept him onto the course.

-- 2 of 3 --

Mr M says T failed to provide the careers support at the end of the course. But from the emails I’ve seen, T appeared to be actively taking steps in this regard. T then arranged for Mr M to be put in touch with the work placement provider. Mr M didn’t want to accept the offer of the placement because it was held remotely. However, T’s brochure under the ‘guaranteed work placement’ heading said: “This is a guaranteed opportunity for all successful candidates. Our team of specialists will assist candidates with securing remote work experience which can last for up to 6 months…”. I also understand Mr M’s point about not being suitable for this type of work more generally. But the promise here was to provide the training and relevant work experience. Based on everything I’ve seen, I don’t think there’s persuasive evidence that T, and by extension, P8, failed to deliver on these particular promises. For all these reasons, I’m not upholding the complaint. I appreciate this will be a disappointing outcome for Mr M. However, he doesn’t have to accept my findings and may pursue this matter through alternative means, such as court (taking appropriate advice), should he wish to do so. My final decision My final decision is that I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Yolande Mcleod Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --