Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim (time-barred); Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim (insufficient evidence) complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H purchased a timeshare for £8,000 in January 2014 financed through a loan arranged by the Lender. In November 2023, his professional representative complained to the Lender alleging the Supplier had misrepresented the timeshare as an investment and that the Lender had participated in an unfair credit relationship. The complaint raised allegations of misrepresentation, pressure to purchase, inadequate affordability checks, unauthorised credit broking, unfair contract terms, and regulatory breaches. The ombudsman rejected all claims: the Section 75 misrepresentation claim was time-barred as it was raised over nine years after the purchase, and the Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim lacked sufficient evidence to support any of the allegations, particularly given the absence of direct testimony and comprehensive documentation from events occurring more than a decade earlier.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr H's Section 75 claim was time-barred because it was first notified to the Lender in November 2023, more than six years after the cause of action accrued on 8 January 2014. The argument that the limitation period was suspended due to concealment was rejected as unconvincing and vague. Regarding the Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim, the ombudsman found insufficient persuasive evidence to support any of the allegations, including misrepresentations about investment returns, pressure to purchase, inadequate affordability checks, unauthorised credit broking, unfair contract terms, or regulatory breaches. The sparse evidential background, particularly the lack of direct testimony or comprehensive documentary evidence from events occurring over ten years prior, was determinative in rejecting the complaint.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website