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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr N purchased a timeshare for £20,000 in May 2007 using a BPF loan, which he repaid by October 2007. He claimed the timeshare was misrepresented as an investment and that his contractual rights were breached when the resort went into liquidation in 2019. Mr N made his complaint to BPF on 30 April 2025, approximately 18 years after purchase. The Ombudsman found BPF fairly declined both the misrepresentation claim (made outside the six-year limitation period with no evidence of concealment) and the breach of contract claim (Mr N could not evidence he was still a member in 2019, and had sold weeks back in 2008). The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that BPF acted fairly on both grounds. Regarding misrepresentation, the claim was made on 30 April 2025, which is outside the six-year limitation period that commenced on 8 May 2007 (the Time of Sale). Mr N's argument that Section 32 of the Limitation Act applied due to concealment was rejected as he provided no persuasive evidence of concealment and was aware by 2008 that the timeshare would not be sold at a profit. Regarding breach of contract, BPF reasonably required evidence that Mr N was still a member in 2019 when the resort went into liquidation. Mr N could not provide this documentation, and evidence showed he had sold weeks back in 2008, casting doubt on whether the contract remained in existence. Therefore, BPF was not unfair in declining the Section 75 claims.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website