Not upheld: time-barred claims; unfair credit relationship; section 75 misrepresentation claim; fiduciary duty breach complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC (trading as Hitachi Capital)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs J complained that Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC (Hitachi Capital) acted unfairly by entering into an unfair credit relationship, rejecting a section 75 misrepresentation claim, and being liable for a supplier's breach of fiduciary duty. Mrs J had financed a £14,715 Fractional Club timeshare purchase in November 2011 and complained to the Lender in May 2019, over seven years later. The ombudsman found the section 140A unfair credit relationship complaint was out of jurisdiction as it was brought outside the applicable time limits. The section 75 misrepresentation claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, with no applicable concealment exception under section 32. The fiduciary duty claim was withdrawn following Supreme Court authority. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied strict time limit rules to each part of the complaint. For the section 140A unfair credit relationship claim, the six-year deadline from settlement (28 February 2012) expired before the complaint was raised (1 May 2019). The three-year alternative deadline from when Mrs J ought reasonably to have become aware of cause for complaint also expired, as she would have known about high-pressure sales tactics, increasing maintenance fees, and reducing holiday options within three years of purchase. For the section 75 claim, although the ombudsman had jurisdiction to consider the Lender's handling of the claim, the underlying misrepresentation claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (six years from the alleged misrepresentation in 2011). Section 32 of the Limitation Act (concealment exception) did not apply because the Supplier had explicitly stated in writing that it made no representation about future value, which Mrs J could have discovered with reasonable diligence. The fiduciary duty claim was withdrawn following Supreme Court authority that no fiduciary duty was owed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website