Not upheld: unfair credit relationship (Section 140A CCA) and rejection of Section 75 claims (misrepresentation and breach of contract) complaint against Shawbrook Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs W complained to Shawbrook Bank Limited in August 2025 about a timeshare purchase financed through a credit agreement in July 2018, claiming they were pressured, inadequately informed, and misled about the product. They alleged the Supplier breached the contract by limiting holiday availability and increasing maintenance fees. Shawbrook rejected all grounds of complaint. The Ombudsman found no evidence of undue pressure, concluded that information failings would not have altered their decision to purchase, and determined that the misrepresentation claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 as it was raised over six years after the Time of Sale. The breach of contract claim lacked sufficient evidence. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found no evidence of undue pressure as Mr and Mrs W did not exercise their 14-day cooling off period and provided little detail about coercive sales tactics. Regarding information provision, while some details may not have been clearly presented, the Ombudsman concluded this would not have changed their purchasing decision as they wanted to make the purchase and had no alternative means of payment. For the Section 75 misrepresentation claim, the Ombudsman applied the Limitation Act 1980, finding the claim was time-barred as it was made more than six years after the Time of Sale (19 August 2025 vs 25 July 2018). For the breach of contract claim regarding holiday availability and maintenance fees, the Ombudsman found insufficient evidence that the Supplier breached the Purchase Agreement, noting that availability was stated to be subject to demand and that Mr and Mrs W had successfully used their points on multiple occasions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website