Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim handling and connected lender liability complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs B purchased a timeshare in 2008 using a £16,065 loan from BPF. The timeshare resort went into liquidation in 2019, and Mrs B made a Section 75 claim against BPF in January 2025 alleging breach of contract. BPF declined the claim, requesting evidence that the credit agreement related to the specific timeshare that failed. Mrs B could not provide any contractual documentation. The ombudsman found BPF was not unfair in declining the claim as Mrs B failed to prove on the balance of probability that the credit agreement was connected to the failed timeshare, which is a necessary condition for Section 75 liability.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Section 75 of the CCA provides connected lender liability where a supplier breaches contract or makes actionable misrepresentation. However, Mrs B's claim requires proof that the credit agreement was related to the specific timeshare that went into liquidation. In the absence of any contractual or purchase documentation, Mrs B failed to establish on the balance of probability that BPF was liable for the Supplier's failings. BPF was therefore fair and reasonable in declining the claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website