Veste

Not upheld: unfair credit relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; rejection of Section 75 claim for misrepresentation complaint against Shawbrook Bank Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6112832 of 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00. unfair credit relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; rejection of Section 75 claim for misrepresentation complaint against Shawbrook Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6112832
Decision date2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00
FirmShawbrook Bank Limited
ProductPersonal loan
Claim typeunfair credit relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; rejection of Section 75 claim for misrepresentation
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld.

Summary

Mr and Mrs B complained that Shawbrook Bank Limited acted unfairly by being party to an unfair credit relationship and by rejecting their Section 75 claim for misrepresentation relating to a Fractional Club timeshare membership purchased on 7 April 2013 for £7,936. The complaint was raised on 29 July 2025, over 12 years after the purchase. The ombudsman found the Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 and that Mr and Mrs B had not provided sufficient evidence that the prospect of investment returns was a motivating factor in their purchase decision. The ombudsman concluded the Lender did not act unfairly in rejecting the claim and was not party to an unfair credit relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr and Mrs B's Section 75 claim for misrepresentation was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as the cause of action accrued at the Time of Sale (7 April 2013) and the claim was not made until July 2025, well outside the six-year limitation period. Section 32 of the Limitation Act could not extend the period as Mr and Mrs B discovered the alleged misrepresentations (regarding holiday availability and investment potential) by 2018 at the latest. Regarding Section 140A, the ombudsman found no evidence that the prospect of financial gain was an important and motivating factor in the purchase decision, and therefore any alleged breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations did not render the credit relationship unfair. The allegations of undue pressure were not substantiated with specific details of what was said or done, and the existence of a 14-day cooling off period which was not exercised undermined the pressure claim.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Shawbrook Bank Limited, all decisions2,48617%
Personal loan, all decisions22,07030%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website