Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against First Holiday Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs B complained that First Holiday Finance Limited acted unfairly by being party to an unfair credit relationship and by rejecting a Section 75 claim regarding their September 2019 purchase of a Fractional Club timeshare membership financed by a £5,401 loan. They alleged the Supplier misrepresented the product as an investment that would appreciate in value, contrary to Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations, and that they were subjected to oppressive sales pressure. The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation under Section 75, as alleged statements were opinions rather than false facts and lacked supporting evidence. Under Section 140A, while acknowledging a possible breach of Regulation 14(3), the ombudsman found it was not material to their purchase decision because evidence showed they were motivated by holiday upgrades and enhanced accommodation rather than investment returns. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a comprehensive analysis under both Section 75 and Section 140A of the CCA. For Section 75, no actionable misrepresentation was found because: (1) statements about investment appreciation were opinions rather than false statements of fact; (2) allegations about holiday access lacked supporting evidence and were not mentioned in Mr and Mrs B's own statement. For Section 140A, the ombudsman examined the Supplier's sales practices, information provision, and alleged breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations. While acknowledging that a breach of Regulation 14(3) was possible, the ombudsman found it was not material to Mr and Mrs B's decision because: (1) their own statement focused on holiday upgrades and enhanced accommodation rather than investment returns; (2) they recalled receiving only £4,000 (1.9% of sale value) from their 2018 purchase, suggesting no expectation of profit; (3) contemporaneous notes recorded their desire to upgrade points and benefits; (4) they would likely have proceeded with the purchase regardless of any investment marketing. The ombudsman rejected affordability allegations as unsupported by specific evidence, found no evidence of oppressive sales pressure given their prior experience, and noted no commission was paid between the Lender and Supplier.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website