Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Elderbridge Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Elderbridge Limited (the Lender) participated in an unfair credit relationship when it financed his timeshare purchase in 2008 for £9,349, and that the Lender wrongly rejected his section 75 claim for misrepresentation. Mr G alleged the Supplier misrepresented holiday availability, resort exclusivity, and ease of resale, and that high-pressure sales tactics and insufficient information about ongoing costs rendered the credit relationship unfair. The ombudsman found no evidence of material misrepresentation, as sales documentation stated availability was subject to demand and the witness statement was unreliable. The ombudsman found the 14-day cooling-off period cured any unfairness from alleged sales tactics, and the commission of £747.92 was not disproportionate. The ombudsman also found the section 75 claim was brought out of time under the Limitation Act 1980. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to determine whether the credit relationship was unfair. The ombudsman found no evidence of material misrepresentation by the Supplier, as the sales paperwork stated availability was subject to demand, and the witness statement was unreliable being written eleven years later. The ombudsman found no evidence of high-pressure sales tactics that significantly impaired Mr and Mrs G's ability to exercise choice, particularly given the 14-day cooling-off period which they did not use to cancel. The ombudsman found the commission of £747.92 (5.85% of amount borrowed) was not disproportionate and did not materially impact the decision to enter the credit agreement. The ombudsman applied the burden of proof from Promontoria v. Samra, finding that the PR had made unsubstantiated assertions rather than proven facts. The ombudsman found the section 75 claim was brought out of time under the Limitation Act 1980, with the limitation period running from the Time of Sale (17 October 2008), not from when the claim was rejected (2020). The ombudsman found no exceptional circumstances to extend the time limit for the irresponsible lending complaint.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website