Not upheld: Irresponsible lending complaint against Tandem Bank Limited (trading as Oplo)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Tandem Bank Limited acted unfairly by not cancelling a personal loan he took out in February 2019 to purchase a timeshare FCM, claiming he was unaware it was a personal loan and that the timeshare sale was a scam. The Supplier subsequently went into bankruptcy, and Mr A surrendered the FCM but remained liable for the loan. The ombudsman found that the loan agreement explicitly identified it as a personal loan with clear terms and information provided, that Mr A had a 14-day cooling off period which he did not exercise, and that there was insufficient evidence of actionable misrepresentation or pressure by the Supplier. The ombudsman also found the transfer of the loan to the Lender was valid and properly notified, and that the loan was unsecured, making Mr A liable for repayment despite surrendering the FCM. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr A was clearly informed he was taking out a personal loan, as the loan agreement explicitly stated it was a 'Fixed sum loan agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974' and described the goods as the timeshare fractional ownership. The loan documentation provided all relevant information including amount, duration, repayment terms, interest rate, and total charge for credit. Regarding the alleged pressure and misrepresentation by the Supplier, Mr A provided insufficient evidence of actionable misrepresentations and failed to exercise his 14-day cooling off period to cancel. The ombudsman noted that the Purchase Agreement was governed by English law, not Spanish law, and that Spanish court rulings against the Supplier did not render the Purchase Agreement unlawful under English law. The transfer of the loan to the Lender was valid as the original agreement included successors and assigns, and Mr A was notified of the transfer. The loan was unsecured, so Mr A remained liable for repayment despite surrendering the FCM.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website