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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs S purchased Fractional Club timeshare membership in October 2013 for £10,141, financed through a credit agreement with Barclays Partner Finance. In January 2018, Mr S complained via a professional representative, alleging the supplier misrepresented the product as an investment with a guaranteed end date, that the lender failed to conduct proper affordability checks, and that the credit relationship was unfair under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The lender rejected the complaint, and the ombudsman upheld that rejection. The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation, concluded that even if the supplier breached timeshare regulations by marketing as an investment, this was not material to Mr S's decision (which was motivated by holiday benefits and cost savings), and determined that the undisclosed commission of 6.6% was not so high as to render the relationship unfair. The ombudsman rejected requests for an oral hearing and sworn affidavits, finding sufficient evidence on file to reach a fair decision.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation by the supplier regarding guaranteed end dates or investment characterization. While acknowledging the possibility that the supplier breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the product as an investment, the ombudsman concluded this was not material to Mr S's purchasing decision, as his own testimony emphasized holiday availability and cost savings rather than investment returns. The ombudsman applied the Supreme Court's principles from Hopcraft, Johnson and Wrench regarding commission disclosure, finding the 6.6% commission was not so high as to render the relationship unfair, and that Mr S had sufficient information about the cost of the credit agreement. The ombudsman rejected arguments about inadequate checks, pressure, and information failures, finding no evidence that the lending was unaffordable or that Mr S would have made a different decision with fuller disclosure.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website