Not upheld: connected lender liability (Section 75 CCA) and unfair credit relationship (Section 140A CCA) complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I complained that Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (trading as Barclays Partner Finance) acted unfairly by being party to an unfair credit relationship and by declining a Section 75 CCA claim regarding the purchase of an Infiniti Fractional Club timeshare membership financed by a £32,648 loan. The purchase occurred on 3 July 2017, but Mr I did not raise his complaint until 29 August 2023. The ombudsman found the Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (six-year limitation period). Regarding the Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim, the ombudsman concluded that even if the Supplier had breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the product as an investment, this would not render the credit relationship unfair because the evidence suggested Mr and Mrs I were motivated by holiday provision rather than investment returns. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as Mr I did not make his claim within six years of the Time of Sale (3 July 2017). Regarding the Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim, the ombudsman concluded that even if the Supplier had breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the product as an investment, this would not have rendered the credit relationship unfair because the evidence suggested Mr and Mrs I were motivated by holiday provision rather than investment returns. The ombudsman noted the absence of direct testimony from Mr I and found that the circumstances of the sale (existing timeshare members, focus on holiday weeks) indicated the investment element was not a material motivating factor.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website