Hitachi Capital Finance Aquashield claim referred to The Financial Ombudsman Service
Consumer Reclaim’s client awarded £4,090.44 which is more than Hitachi initially offered.
The Financial Ombudsman Service upheld the 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. So they argued that the client had not provided sufficient evidence. Hitachi wanted the customer 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. Hitachi wanted to establish if there had been any reduction in energy consumption prior to the roof and walls being treated. Consumer Reclaim argued that they had supplied sufficient evidence. This evidence clearly demonstrated that the product cannot prevent heat loss. Consumer Reclaim argued 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. FOS said that there are too many other factors and variables that can contribute to energy usage. Due to this, they were satisfied that the evidence supplied by Consumer Reclaim. They concluded that the product was not fit for purpose.