Not upheld: unfair credit relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and misrepresentation claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs W and Mr W purchased a timeshare '26-keys' membership in October 2009 financed by a credit agreement in Mrs W's sole name with Clydesdale Financial Services Limited. In March 2024, Mrs W, via a professional representative, complained that the Supplier had misrepresented the product and that the credit relationship was unfair due to alleged breaches of timeshare regulations, undue pressure, unaffordable lending, and insufficient information provision. The ombudsman rejected the misrepresentation claim as made outside the six-year limitation period and found no evidence that the credit relationship was rendered unfair, as there was insufficient evidence of pressure, the lending was not proven unaffordable, information failures did not cause loss, and the Timeshare Regulations 2010 were not in force at the time of sale. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs W's 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 27 October 2009 (the Time of Sale) and the claim not being made until 18 March 2024. The ombudsman rejected the argument that Section 32 of the Limitation Act (which postpones the limitation period for fraud, concealment, or mistake) applied, as the professional representative had not provided persuasive evidence of such circumstances. Regarding the Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim, the ombudsman examined the Supplier's sales and marketing practices, information provision, lending decision, and alleged regulatory breaches. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence of undue pressure, no evidence that the lending was unaffordable, no evidence that information failures caused financial loss, and noted that the Timeshare Regulations 2010 could not have been breached as they were not in force at the Time of Sale.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website