Not upheld: Unknown / needs review complaint against Fullbrook Associates Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S paid £4,828 to company S for a timeshare termination claim, believing the fee would cover Fulbrook's legal costs. When Mrs S requested a refund, Fulbrook stated it was not involved in collecting the fee and that the matter was between Mrs S and company S. Mrs S complained to the FOS, but the ombudsman determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the complaint because timeshare termination claims are not regulated activities under FCA rules. The ombudsman noted that while the RAO covers 'financial services or financial product claims', a timeshare termination claim is distinct from such claims. Therefore, the complaint was not upheld and no action was required from Fulbrook.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that timeshare termination claims do not fall within the scope of regulated activities under DISP 2.3.1R and the RAO. While Articles 89G and 89I cover activities relating to 'financial services or financial product claims', a timeshare termination claim is distinct from a complaint about financial services or products. The activity must relate to a financial services or financial product claim (such as a complaint against a creditor about timeshare payments), not merely the termination of the timeshare agreement itself. Therefore, the FOS lacks jurisdiction to consider the complaint.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website