Not upheld: unfair credit relationship, misrepresentation, irresponsible lending complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (trading as Barclays Partner Finance)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S purchased a European Collection timeshare membership in June 2010 for £7,600 financed by a loan from Clydesdale Financial Services Limited. In September 2024, over 14 years later, she complained that the credit relationship was unfair, claiming she was pressured into the purchase, misled about holiday availability, and told the membership was an investment. The ombudsman found the misrepresentation claims time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (six-year limit expired in June 2016) and rejected arguments that Section 32 extended the limitation period due to lack of supporting evidence. On the substantive unfair relationship claim under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence of pressure (Mrs S had a 14-day cooling-off period and did not exercise it), unaffordable lending, or that the membership was marketed as an investment. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that misrepresentation claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as the six-year limitation period expired in June 2016, well before the September 2024 claim. Section 32 of the Limitation Act could not extend the time limit as the PR provided no supporting evidence of fraud, concealment, or mistake by the Lender. Regarding the unfair credit relationship claim under Section 140A, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence that the lending was unaffordable, that Mrs S was pressured into the purchase (she had a cooling-off period and the documentation clearly stated her cancellation rights), or that the membership was marketed as an investment in the way alleged. The Timeshare Regulations cited by the PR did not apply as they came into force in February 2011, after the June 2010 sale. The ombudsman noted the absence of direct testimony from Mrs S herself, which hindered assessment of credibility and context.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website