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 (BPF)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that BPF acted unfairly by being party to an unfair credit relationship and by rejecting a Section 75 claim regarding the purchase of a Vacation Club timeshare membership financed in July 2010. The complaint was raised in May 2024, nearly 14 years later. The ombudsman found the Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as the six-year limitation period had expired. Regarding the Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim, the ombudsman found no credible evidence supporting allegations that the timeshare was misrepresented, that undue pressure was applied, that the lending was unaffordable, or that the timeshare was marketed as an investment in breach of the Timeshare Regulations. The ombudsman noted the absence of direct testimony from Mr and Mrs R and relied on the contractual documentation, which contradicted the allegations. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the Section 75 misrepresentation claim was made outside the six-year limitation period established by the Limitation Act 1980, with the cause of action accruing on 20 July 2010 (the date of sale). The ombudsman rejected the argument that Section 32 of the Limitation Act (fraud, concealment, or mistake) applied, as the PR provided no persuasive evidence. Regarding the Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim, the ombudsman found no credible evidence that: (1) the timeshare was misrepresented; (2) undue pressure was applied (noting the 14-day cancellation period was available); (3) the lending was unaffordable; or (4) the timeshare was marketed as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations. The ombudsman noted the absence of direct testimony from Mr and Mrs R and relied on the contractual documentation and inherent probabilities of the sale, which did not support the allegations.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website