Spray foam claims: Section 75 and the Financial Ombudsman explained

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 can make a lender equally liable with the supplier when the supplier misrepresented what it sold or broke the contract^[1]. It applies only where the cash price of a single item is over £100 and not over £30,000; the version checked was shown as in force to 15 October 2026, so check the current text^[1].

The claim is against the creditor, so it needs credit to have been used: the decisions cited here involve credit cards and a fixed-sum loan^[3][8].

Section 56 of the same Act covers what the supplier said in pre-contract talks (antecedent negotiations)^[9], and in one loan case the ombudsman considered both sections together^[8]. If the installer introduced you to the finance, the FCA treats a trader like that as a secondary credit broker, which needs FCA authorisation^[10]. Terms are explained in the spray foam glossary. This is general information, not legal advice.

You claim to the lender first, and the ombudsman comes in only after that; evidence the lender has not yet seen may not be considered later^[11]. The route usually has three stages:

1. The installer, if it is still trading. The consumer guide from the Property Care Association (PCA), the Insulation Manufacturers Association (IMA) and partners says to ask the original installer to put problems right first^[12]. If it has gone, see what to do when a spray foam installer has ceased trading.
2. The lender. The same guide suggests asking the credit card provider for a refund if the installer cannot help^[12]. Send all your evidence now: in one decision, later evidence was not considered because the lender had not assessed it^[11]; in another, arguments not put to the lender carried little weight^[4].
3. The Financial Ombudsman Service. The decisions cited here are complaints about how the lender handled the Section 75 claim^[8].

See also the step-by-step guide to making a claim.

Yes: contract claims have six years under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980, and the ombudsman applied that strictly in two spray foam Section 75 decisions^[5][6]. In one, foam installed in February 2016 led to a claim in 2023 that was likely out of time; neither the negligence extension nor deliberate concealment applied^[5]. In the other (2026), foam installed about March 2019 led to a claim in August 2025, and later discovery of the risk did not move the start date^[6].

In a third decision (July 2018 sale, 2023 claim) no time point was taken because the lender did not argue it^[11]. Do not rely on that. Your consumer rights with spray foam covers the wider law.

Published spray foam decisions go both ways; to read them, search "spray foam" on the ombudsman's website. The ombudsman has said negative commentary does not mean every installation is defective, and each case turns on its own merits^[4]. The table shows how the ombudsman reasoned in individual cases; it does not predict any other case.

"—" means the decision year is not recorded in this page's notes.

Across these decisions, a misrepresentation needed a false statement of fact that led the person to sign^[3], and the upheld cases cited here rested on an independent inspection or report, or on notes made at the time^[2][15][13].

Eight further spray foam decisions published in July and August 2026 follow the same pattern. The one upheld case rested on independent surveyor reports and the homeowner's own photographed readings^[23]; the others failed for want of evidence, on time limits, or because the report reached the ombudsman after the lender had decided^{[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]}.

Not before independent evidence has been gathered: in published decisions, removing the foam first repeatedly left claims without the evidence the ombudsman needed^[17][3]. In one case the ombudsman expected at least "something from an independent source"^[8].

A removal firm's own report may be given less weight. Where the same company inspected, recommended removal and was paid to remove, the lender was entitled to doubt the report's independence, though the ombudsman did not suggest the firm acted improperly^[4]. In a 2026 decision, a report from a firm that made unprompted contact carried little weight^[16].

Evidence can also work against a claim: in that case a later survey found no damp or decay and the removal firm recorded very low moisture, so there was no evidence of loss^[16]. The PCA advises an independent assessment before accepting removal advice from any firm with a commercial interest^[20].

If the foam has already gone, some evidence may still be there, as in one case file: Foam already removed, Section 75 claim open: the evidence was still behind the felt. For removal more generally, read do you need to remove spray foam. An inspection gives you evidence; no one can promise what a bank or the ombudsman will decide.

Notes made at the time, the original paperwork and an independent inspection or report^[13][2].

• Your own notes of what the salesperson said, made as close to the visit as you can; in one decision, notes made at the time were accepted as an accurate record^[13].
• The paperwork: in one decision the ombudsman had the sales order and a warranty, but not the BBA document^[3]. Keep those, plus your finance agreement or card statement. See what paperwork you should have for spray foam.
• Photographs and moisture readings of the loft^[3].
• For a mortgage complaint: a refusal letter, and what lenders' criteria said at the time of the sale^[3][8].
• If the foam has gone: the removal firm's reasons, in writing^[3].
• An independent inspection by someone with no stake in removal^[2].

You can approach the lender yourself: the PCA and IMA consumer guide suggests asking the credit card provider for a refund if the installer cannot help^[12]. If you use a claims management company, FCA rules (PS21/18) cap its fees from 30% (maximum £420) to 15% (maximum £10,000), depending on the amount^[7]. Ask for the fee in writing before you sign.

In February 2025 the HomeOwners Alliance and the PCA warned government that legal firms pursuing mis-selling claims, as well as rogue removal firms, were targeting owners who cannot sell, many elderly or vulnerable^[21]. The evidence rules do not change: in one case brought through a claims management company, arguments not put to the lender carried little weight^[4].