Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank · DRN-6238035

The complaint Mr H complains about the outcome of a claim he made to Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank (“Tesco Bank”) in relation to a kitchen purchase. What happened In March 2025, Mr H bought a kitchen from a supplier I’ll call ‘G’, for £13,747.59, of which £9,623.59 was paid using his Tesco Bank credit card. The kitchen was to be installed by G. Mr H says the kitchen delivered by G was incomplete, incorrect and unfit for purpose. H then ceased to trade. Mr H contacted Tesco Bank about the problems with the kitchen. They opened a claim for him under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s75) and an independent inspection was commissioned which was critical of the goods that had been supplied. Tesco Bank offered Mr H a settlement of £1,122, which Mr H didn’t accept. Tesco Bank re-reviewed the claim but decided not to increase its offer, although they did offer Mr H £100 for their delay in responding to Mr H’s complaint, bearing in mind he had explained he was enduring very difficult living conditions because of the problems with the kitchen. Mr H referred his complaint to us. Our investigator recommended that it should be upheld. He felt the independent report was compelling evidence to show the kitchen wasn’t of satisfactory quality. Our investigator said it would be fair for Tesco Bank to fully refund Mr H what he’d paid for the kitchen, with interest, and that the kitchen should be completely removed, so Mr H could purchase a new one. Our investigator also said Tesco Bank should refund Mr H the cost of integrated appliances he bought for the kitchen as he was no longer able to use them. And he said Tesco Bank should either pay the costs incurred in removing the kitchen directly to whoever removed it or to Mr H. He also felt Tesco Bank should refund Mr H the money he paid to have the kitchen fitted and for works carried out by a plumber and an electrician. And he said Tesco Bank’s offer of £100 for distress and inconvenience was fair. Mr H agreed in principle with our investigator’s view but made a few points to provide what he felt was practical clarity to ensure the recommendation could be implemented fairly. He said: • It would be fair for Tesco Bank to pay him the refund within 24 hours of them receiving evidence the kitchen has been removed. • He needed confirmation that a reasonable quote from a qualified installer to remove the kitchen would be sufficient. The installer would also be fitting a replacement kitchen. Mr H had an installer ready to do both things and asking Mr H to provide three quotes as our investigator had suggested would cause unnecessary delay and stress. • He needed Tesco Bank to confirm in writing what proof they needed to confirm the kitchen had been removed.

-- 1 of 8 --

• He reserved the right to ask an Ombudsman to reconsider the distress and inconvenience award due to the prolonged hardship he’s experienced and the continued delay in resolving the matter. Tesco Bank didn’t agree with our investigator. They said the kitchen was purchased on a supply-only basis with fitting arranged by the customer’s own contractor and that Mr H had made multiple specification changes which impacted the design. Tesco Bank also said it was difficult to understand exactly what was purchased as they hadn’t been provided with a full invoice. As the matter remains unresolved, Mr H’s complaint was passed to me to decide. I issued my provisional decision on 9 March 2026, in which I said the following and which forms part of my final decision: ‘In deciding what I think Tesco Bank should do to resolve Mr H’s complaint (if anything), I take into account the relevant law which here includes s75. This provides that the debtor has an equal right to claim against the provider of credit (here, Tesco Bank), if there is a breach of contract and or misrepresentation by the supplier of goods and/or service (here, G). As Mr H bought goods under a sales contract, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) is relevant here. The CRA implies terms into Mr H’s contract with G which includes that any goods supplied to him would be of satisfactory quality. The CRA sets out that the quality of goods is satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price and all other relevant circumstances. Mr H’s claim to Tesco Bank was that the kitchen he purchased was incomplete, incorrect and not fit for purpose. Mr H was therefore complaining that the kitchen wasn’t of satisfactory quality when it was delivered to him. I highlight this because Tesco Bank has mentioned that the contract with G was for the supply of the kitchen only. But Mr H‘s argument isn’t that the kitchen wasn’t installed correctly; it was that the goods themselves were substandard and incomplete. I’ve looked at the contents of the independent report that was carried out, which states the following (I have made relevant alterations to ensure the decision remains appropriately anonymised): “Having gone through all the items that should have been delivered, I have broken down and itemised each section as to what has been delivered and what items are still outstanding. I have also taken the time to run through everything with Mr H and discussed what he was sold and believed to be getting as a kitchen and what he has received. The following list isn't what he has currently got and not what he was told he would be getting. TLU1200 Pantry Unit with bi fold doors The unit currently has no plinth to the bottom section which leaves a 150mm gap between the bottom door and the floor. In my opinion this doors with them being bi fold should go all the way to the floor however you might able to attach a bottom frontal to the bottom of the doors to hide the gap and create a plinth in effect. Product required 2 x 150 x 600 fronts in painted porcelain should resolve this issue.

-- 2 of 8 --

The internal draw inside the cupboard was sold as a full depth draw. Currently it’s a shallow depth draw. This is not the draw the customer was shown in the showroom. This whole unit has had to be modified on site to fit the gap as the designer had miss measured. TSOCOH60 Oven Housing Customer discussed the appliances and sizes that he was purchasing for this unit for the designer to accommodate the correct size doors for above and below the appliances. He didn't get this correct which in turn left a massive gap between microwave and top door. Leaving customer no alternative to purchase the Combi oven the designer tried to sell him first time around. He also told the customer the cross rails on the shaker doors would all run in line. This isn't the case. Visuals supplied show this. The oven housing doors haven't been order correctly. Top door should be a bespoke 435 x 600 frontal and one of the draw fronts should have been a 355 x 600 for rails and doors to line through TLU30R 300 shelved larder unit standard depth, customer was told this would be made full depth of the space to maximise storage. BP1000/3 3 x 1000 draw unit with cutlery tray Induction hob is a Vented Hob which the designer was aware of. Meaning the top draw of the unit is void Normally this wouldn't be a issue but its the only draws in the kitchen so the customer now has no cutlery draw which is required. Kitchen island Main issue with the island is it doesn't work. The dishwasher has been positioned to the RHS of the Belfast sink. On the design the designer has not included any end panels to go either side of the Belfast sink unit which is required when an appliance is next to it. This also creates an issue as the island has units front and back which add up to the same measurements. End panels will be required for the back of the island also. Products required 4 x base end panels painted in Farrow and ball Paean Black. Mr H has paid out a substantial amount of money on a Kitchen which was sold to him as a "BESPOKE" kitchen and a high-end product. I’m not surprised he feels he has been cheated by G, as not only is a large amount of the order missing but the majority that has been supplied is incorrect and unworkable. G have massively undelivered in all areas not least value you for money. This is far from a £14k plus kitchen. The Product he has received is far from bespoke in fact there is nothing bespoke about it. The cabinets he was led to believe he was getting are not bespoke and are in fact a flat pack carcass prebuilt and delivered to site. The Pantry unit isn't fit for purpose. This has been delivered over size and arrived on site as a flat pack unit. This wasn't mentioned to Mr H on purchasing the kitchen that the pantry unit would come flat packed and would require

-- 3 of 8 --

building up on site by his fitter. The Unit that was sent was to big for the opening and has been modified to try suit the opening which in all honesty is an absolute mess. The Cabinet doors have all been sent as a standard stock item and not been modified to create the bespoke look which is the main reason Mr H went to G. On the designs, visuals and conversations discussed with the designer he was told all doors and rails would run in line. This isn't the case. In my opinion this kitchen needs ripping out and starting again. The design and units do not work to what he was led to believe he was getting. However this would mean Mr H losing out on 8 days of labour costs which he has already paid out on top of the huge amount he's paid for a kitchen he's not got”. I find the independent report to be very compelling evidence to show that the goods provided were not of a satisfactory quality. I have no reasons to doubt the expertise of the inspector and there’s nothing to show that the inspector commented on anything other than what was meant to be provided by G under its contract with Mr H. I note that Tesco Bank has said that Mr H may have contributed to the problems to what happened because he made several alterations to its design. But the report makes no mention of this, and I find Tesco Bank’s position to be a bit speculative. Whilst Tesco Bank made an offer which appears to be an estimate of missing items, this doesn’t in my view remedy the breach of contract here. The report doesn’t suggest the issues could be fixed, it was quite clear that the most appropriate remedy in view of the significant issues with the kitchen was for it to be removed and for a new one to be installed. I have no reason to doubt this, and I haven’t seen how practically the issues could be remedied by reinstalling the kitchen or adding missing items to it, when the report essentially says this isn’t possible. Having considered everything. I find Tesco Bank didn’t act fairly in how they attempted to resolve the s75 claim. I find there was a clear breach of contract that the goods provided weren’t of satisfactory quality, and I will go on to set out how I think this should be put right. Putting things right I feel the only suitable solution here is a full rejection of the goods and that Tesco Bank should refund all payments Mr H made to G. I understand this was a total of £13,747.59 (£9,623.59 from Mr H’s Tesco Bank card, and the difference from another card with a different bank). I would just say at this stage that Mr H won’t be able to make a similar claim to the other bank for the money he paid using that card, as this will lead to double recovery of funds. I’m not suggesting Mr H intends to do this of course, but it’s worth me clarifying this. I note our investigator said Mr H shouldn’t be liable for any interest Mr H accrued on his credit cards for this purchase. I find Tesco Bank should refund any interest accrued on this purchase on the Tesco Bank credit card. However, I’m not so sure how possible it will be for Tesco Bank to work out how much interest Mr H paid on the other card, which isn’t held with them. If Mr H has suitable evidence of this to show Tesco Bank, then they should refund this. But if he doesn’t have suitable evidence of this, I can’t direct Tesco Bank to do anything in respect of this. And it’s not incumbent on Tesco Bank to contact the other bank to try to work this out, as it’s possible the other bank may not send any information to them, leaving this particular part of the complaint unresolved.

-- 4 of 8 --

Aside from the refund, the practicalities of resolving this complaint are complex bearing in mind the kitchen, as far as I know, is still in place. Removing it will cause more disruption and delays to Mr H, and he will need to arrange a new kitchen to be purchased and installed. There is also the matter of how Mr H would be able to afford a new kitchen if the money he paid to G isn’t refunded to him promptly. I have to find, as far as practically possible, a fair way to resolve this dispute. I understand Mr H has an installer lined up to both remove the kitchen and install a new one for him. Bearing in mind the significant disruption Mr H has experienced, if he still wishes to proceed on this basis, I think that is fair. Tesco Bank should though refund Mr H any costs he incurs for the removal of the kitchen, upon suitable evidence provided by him. I’ve mentioned above that Mr H currently is faced with having to purchase a new kitchen when he has already spent significant money on the kitchen that needs to be removed. I currently think that Mr H’s suggestion that Tesco Bank refunds him the money he paid within 24 hours of Mr H showing evidence to Tesco Bank that the kitchen has been removed isn’t unreasonable. I think it should be straightforward for Mr H to send in pictures of the removal to them, and Tesco Bank should ensure that any messages received from Mr H about this is prioritised. Mr H has also asked for consequential losses to be refunded to him. These include labour costs he incurred when the kitchen was attempted to be installed and are for fitting, plumbing costs and electrician costs. I’m satisfied that all these costs were incurred in the course of the kitchen fitting, and that Mr H is likely to incur similar costs again when having a new kitchen fitted. It wouldn’t therefore be fair for Mr H to have to pay twice for those labour costs. So, I find it appropriate that he is reimbursed, in full, for these costs. As far as I understand, the costs are as follows: • £1,600 – fitting costs. • £900 - electrician costs. • £1.020 - plumbing costs. If Tesco Bank need to see evidence of those costs, they can let me know this in response to my provisional decision. Mr H has also explained that he purchased additional items for the kitchen from a third-party supplier. I’ve seen a copy of the invoice for this, and it shows that Mr H purchased an induction hob, a dishwasher, an electric single oven and a microwave at a total cost of £3,076. I asked Mr H to explain to me whether he still intended to use these items once a new kitchen is installed. He has told me he won’t be using these because they were specifically purchased in relation to G’s kitchen design and that they had received confirmation from G that the items could fit the unit measurements in their design. I think it unlikely that these appliances would align with a new kitchen layout, seeing as I can’t discount that G’s design may have been flawed and to the extent that the appliances would never have been able to fit the measurements of Mr H’s space for a kitchen installation. I find Mr H’s comments about these items to be credible, and he has explicitly said he won’t keep them if he was to receive a refund for these. This does present me with some difficulties though. I’m not sure I can direct Tesco Bank to collect these items when these didn’t form part of the contract for goods between Mr H and G. And, if they don’t, then Mr H would be left with having to dispose of these himself, or sell them (in which case, by saying Tesco Bank should refund the cost of this, this might leave Mr H in profit which wouldn’t be

-- 5 of 8 --

fair). I also can’t direct Mr H to do anything specifically with these appliances as my decision concerns what Tesco Bank should do to put things right. I’m realistically left in a situation where what I direct Tesco Bank to do may not resolve this issue at this time. My current thinking is that Mr H keeps the units, sells them, and sends in suitable evidence of the difference in cost to Tesco Bank of what he paid for them against what he sold them for. Or - if Mr H disposes of them and/or is able to return them to the third- party supplier, then Tesco Bank should refund him the cost of the appliances. I am open to any suggestions Mr H and Tesco Bank may have on this though. Finally, I’ve considered Tesco Bank’s offer to pay Mr H £100 for distress and inconvenience. I realise Mr H feels this is inadequate and I’ve seen how much impact this has had on him and his family, as he hadn’t had a functioning kitchen for quite some time. I’m really sorry to hear about this as this has been, and continues to be, an extremely difficult and distressing situation for him. When considering damages for breach of contract via s75 I consider what a court might award and it is generally established that a court will not make awards for distress and inconvenience as a matter of course when it comes to breach of contract. This sort of award is more likely to occur where the contract is for something specifically meant to give enjoyment – like a holiday or a wedding. And even where a court is minded to make such an award – these will usually be modest. In the case of building work/home improvements – it is generally expected that there will be a level of disruption and inconvenience that comes with such a contract. However, where the level of disruption is so great as to cause physical discomfort then a court might make a modest award to reflect the distress and inconvenience that has occurred. I think that having a non-functioning kitchen for such a long time has caused significant disruption and discomfort to Mr H, and that having the kitchen removed will cause additional disruption to him. So, it seems fair that Tesco Bank should pay compensation. It isn’t clear what a court might award in such a situation, and we won’t know exactly the level of disruption Mr H will have experienced overall but based on what has been said I think that an additional payment of £500 compensation is not unreasonable’. I asked both parties to send me any further evidence or comments they wanted me to consider. Tesco Bank replied saying they had nothing further to add. Mr H replied with the following points in respect of the appliances he bought: • These were bought specifically in reliance on G’s kitchen design and measurements. • The single oven and microwave were removed from their packaging and placed into the kitchen units during the attempted installation. As a result, they can’t be returned or resold. • The induction hob was bought only after he received confirmation from G that it would fit within the units they’d designed. This appliance is no longer suitable for use within a future kitchen layout, and the box has been opened by the fitter so it’s not possible to be resold as new stock.

-- 6 of 8 --

• The dishwasher remains boxed and unused. He would be willing to retain the dishwasher and remove this item from his claim in the interests of resolving the matter pragmatically. • As a result of the above points, it’s fair that the amount he paid for the single oven, microwave and hob is refunded to him. Mr H also asked me to confirm what evidence Tesco Bank should reasonably require to verify the kitchen has been removed. He’s suggested that photographs showing the kitchen has been dismantled or removed, together with confirmation of this or an invoice from the installer who carries out the work, to be sufficient. 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’d like to thank Mr H and Tesco Bank for their replies to my provisional decision. As I mentioned in my provisional decision, this is a complex situation and I have to find, as far as practically possible, a fair way to resolve this dispute. Mr H has explained why he isn’t able to return or re-sell the single oven, microwave and induction hob that he bought. I have no reason to doubt this, and I note he has offered to retain the dishwasher as it remains boxed and unused. So, in my view, Mr H has tried to find a pragmatic solution to this particular issue, rather than for example insisting that the cost of all these items is refunded to him. Overall, I think what Mr H has proposed seems fair. So, in addition to the refunds that I set out in my provisional decision, which I shall include in the next section on how Tesco Bank needs to put things right, I think it fair that Tesco Bank refunds Mr H the cost of the single oven, microwave and induction hob. I also think Mr H has put forward a practical solution to the evidence Tesco Bank might need to show the kitchen has been removed. So, Tesco Bank should act as I set out in my provisional decision on the provision of that evidence, namely photographs showing the kitchen has been dismantled/removed with confirmation and/or an invoice from the installer that this has happened. I will also include this in the next section of my decision. Putting things right Tesco Bank needs to do the following: • refund all payments Mr H made to G. I understand this was a total of £13,747.59 (£9,623.59 from Mr H’s Tesco Bank card, and the difference from another card with a different bank). • refund any interest accrued on this purchase on the Tesco Bank credit card. • refund any interest Mr H paid on his other credit card in relation to this purchase if he can show them suitable evidence of this. • refund Mr H the money he paid above within 24 hours of him showing evidence to Tesco Bank that the kitchen has been removed. This evidence can be as Mr H has suggested, namely photographs showing the kitchen has been dismantled or removed, together with confirmation or an invoice from the installer who carries out

-- 7 of 8 --

the work. Tesco Bank should ensure that any messages received from Mr H about this are prioritised. • refund Mr H any costs he incurs for the removal of the kitchen, upon suitable evidence provided by him. • refund labour costs incurred by Mr H, as follows: o £1,600 – fitting costs. o £900 - electrician costs. o £1.020 - plumbing costs. • refund the cost of the appliances Mr H bought, as follows: o £1,459 – induction hob. o £699 – single oven. o £749 – microwave. Tesco Bank should also pay Mr H £500 compensation. My final decision I uphold this complaint and direct Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank to take the action I’ve set out in the ‘putting things right’ section of my decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Daniel Picken Ombudsman

-- 8 of 8 --