National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company · DRN-6056076

The complaint Mr B is unhappy that after providing further evidence, National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company (‘NatWest’) still rejected his claim made under s.75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). What happened In 2024, Mr B raised a s.75 claim with NatWest. This claim related to spray foam insulation he had purchased in 2019. Mr B believed the supplier had both misrepresented the product and installed the spray foam poorly. Ultimately that claim ended up with the Financial Ombudsman Service and was considered by me. I didn’t believe NatWest needed to take any further action regarding that claim. However, while the claim was ongoing Mr B provided further evidence that showed he now needed a full reroof to his property, at a cost of £29,760. This work was to be undertaken by a company I’ll call ‘K’. Mr B felt this and the other evidence he had provided alongside, showed the spray foam had been installed poorly and caused the damage that now needed a significant repair to remedy. As this additional evidence wasn’t available to NatWest at the time it initially considered Mr B’s claim, NatWest said this had to be looked at under a new complaint and it would investigate things further to see if it now had liability under s.75. After reviewing the claim further, NatWest said there wasn’t sufficient evidence to show the original spray foam purchase was directly responsible for the faults identified that now require a new roof costing almost £30,000. NatWest said many lofts need repairs as part of ongoing maintenance and while K had highlighted defects that it said required a new roof, that doesn’t mean the spray foam is responsible for that. One of our investigators considered this response and agreed. They acknowledged the report from K highlighted several bits of work that needed to be carried out. But no mention of spray foam was made or that any damage now present was being attributed to it. The investigator added that Mr B had provided a document outlining ventilation requirements pre- 2019. However, they also weren’t persuaded by this as it doesn’t set out that there was a problem with Mr B’s spray foam or the ventilation. The investigator did say NatWest didn’t consider the second claim within a reasonable timeframe. This was after NatWest said the matter needed to be raised separately and that it would be back in touch with Mr B. That didn’t happen and Mr B had to refer the matter back to our service to get a response. This resulted in Mr B not receiving an answer for around three months, for this the investigator recommended NatWest pay Mr B £100. NatWest agreed. Mr B didn’t. He said he’d now had to pay a further £22,800 for more remedial work to be carried out on his roof. This work was done by a company I’ll refer to as ‘P’. Mr B agreed K’s report didn’t demonstrate the spray foam was the cause of any of the faults. But he said a report from P would provide evidence that the spray foam was the cause of the damage to the roof structure and rafters. He also said that P had identified fundamental errors in the work carried out by K. The investigator said P’s report again didn’t link the issues present to the spray foam. They said that if Mr B was wanting to claim for works carried out by K that were of unsatisfactory

-- 1 of 3 --

quality, that would need to be a new claim. Mr B said that all the costs he had incurred (which now total around £64,000), were only necessary as they directly flowed from the defective spray foam installation that caused the damage to the roof. As Mr B didn’t agree, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. I would also like to point out I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. In this case I’m only considering the claim based on the additional evidence that was provided. I’ve already answered why I didn’t believe the initial evidence Mr B provided demonstrated that a misrepresentation or breach of contract had occurred. So, the new evidence here that NatWest considered was the report/quote for a reroof from K, a document regarding ventilation requirements and some picture of Mr B’s loft space from before and after the removal of the spray foam. Having considered these I remain satisfied that NatWest doesn’t need do anything more regarding Mr B’s s.75 claim. Mr B himself has agreed the report from K makes no mention of the spray foam or says it’s the reasons for the work that’s being quoted. Having reviewed it myself, I’m also of the opinion that this is a quote for work that was identified as needing repairs, but those repairs aren’t linked by K to the spray foam or make any findings that the spray foam was installed incorrectly. The spray foam had already been removed by the time K assessed the roof. I also agree with the investigator that the ventilation document provided doesn’t materially impact this claim. It doesn’t show there was any issue with ventilation not meeting requirements with Mr B’s installation. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest the supplier should discuss ventilation options with a customer prior to installation. Additionally, the pictures provided by Mr B by themselves also don’t show the spray foam was incorrectly installed or wasn’t suitable. To try and bring the matter to a close, I have also considered the evidence provided by P. Even though NatWest didn’t have that available when considering this further claim. I’ve done this because I don’t believe it changes the outcome to this complaint. That’s ultimately because like the report from K, the one from P also doesn’t state whether the spray foam was installed incorrectly. It makes no findings into relation to the spray foam, doesn’t talk about possible installation issues with it, (which would again be difficult given it had already been removed, and K had done extensive work to the roof) and doesn’t link any damage to the spray foam. I appreciate Mr B feels his issue all directly related to the spray foam installation, but the evidence here doesn’t support that. Nothing I’ve seen on this case leads me to believe the spray foam was installed without reasonable care and skills and has caused/accelerated any of the issues that Mr B now has with his roof. So those now identified issues wouldn’t be consequential losses from the spray foam, as there isnt any breach of contract from them to flow from. Like the investigator has said, there may be a possible separate claim here for the work K carried out. That’s not something that relates to this complaint. That may be something Mr B is able to pursue depending on how he paid for K’s services and any other required criteria for a valid claim being met. That’s not something I can advise Mr B on, and I leave it for him to make his own enquires on that should he wish.

-- 2 of 3 --

I know Mr B feels very strongly that the spray foam is the cause of all his issues and that as NatWest partially funded that purchase, it should be liable for the significant further losses he has now incurred. I’ve explained why I don’t agree. But our service is a free and informal service and ultimately Mr B can reject the decision and pursue matters via other means (such as through the courts) should he wish. Lastly, I’ve considered NatWest’s handling of this claim. There was a small delay in NatWest providing an answer. I can also see that despite saying it would be back in touch, NatWest didn’t contact Mr B further, meaning he had to refer back to our service for a response. For the distress and inconvenience caused by this, I believe the £100 recommended by the investigator is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Putting things right • NatWest should pay Mr B £100 for the distress and inconvenience its handling of this claim has caused. My final decision I uphold Mr B’s complaint for the handling of the claim only and require National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company to put things right for him as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Paul Blower Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --