Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim (misrepresentation) and Section 140A unfair credit relationship complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Ms N purchased two timeshare products from a Supplier in April 2010 and November 2011, financed by two credit agreements with the Lender. In October 2024, she complained that the Supplier had misrepresented the availability of holiday accommodation and that the Lender should be held responsible under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act and for participating in an unfair credit relationship under Section 140A. The ombudsman found the Section 75 claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as Ms N had discovered the alleged misrepresentations by November 2011 but did not notify the Lender until October 2024, more than six years after the cause of action accrued. The ombudsman also found insufficient evidence of misrepresentation, noting that Ms N had signed documentation stating accommodation was subject to availability, and that the allegations were vague and lacked detail. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Limitation Act 1980 to determine that Section 75 claims must mirror claims against the Supplier, which have a six-year limitation period from when the cause of action accrued. For misrepresentation claims, this accrues when loss is incurred, which was at the time of purchase in April 2010 and November 2011. Ms N did not notify the Lender of her claims until October 2024, well beyond the six-year period. Section 32 of the Limitation Act (which allows extension for fraud or concealment) did not apply because Ms N had discovered the alleged misrepresentations by November 2011 at the latest, when she was already experiencing booking difficulties before Purchase 2. Regarding Section 140A claims, the ombudsman found the allegations of misrepresentation were vague and lacked sufficient detail, and the signed documentation indicated Ms N had agreed that accommodation was subject to availability. No credible evidence supported claims of pressure, illegality, or failure to disclose the Supplier's regulatory status or the identity of the lender.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website