Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C purchased a timeshare membership in May 2007 using a £17,754 loan from BPF. He alleged the timeshare was misrepresented as an investment that would generate profit within 6-12 months and made claims under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act in January 2025, over 17 years later. The Ombudsman found that Mr C's misrepresentation claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as it was made more than six years after the cause of action accrued on the date of purchase. The breach of contract claims were similarly time-barred or lacked sufficient evidence, particularly regarding whether Mr C remained a member when the resort went into liquidation in 2019. The Ombudsman concluded that BPF acted fairly in declining all Section 75 claims and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman applied the Limitation Act 1980 to both claims. For misrepresentation, the cause of action accrued on 9 May 2007 (Time of Sale), giving Mr C six years to claim. His claim on 30 January 2025 was outside this period. Mr C's reliance on Section 32 of the LA (fraud, concealment, or mistake) was rejected as he provided no persuasive evidence of concealment and was aware by 2008 that the timeshare could not be sold at profit. For breach of contract regarding failure to sell the apartment, the cause of action accrued around May 2008, again making the January 2025 claim time-barred. Regarding the liquidation claim, Mr C failed to provide evidence he was still a member in 2019, making it unclear whether his contractual rights were valid or breached. BPF was therefore not unfair in declining both claims.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website