Not upheld: unfair credit relationship (Section 140A CCA) and connected lender liability (Section 75 CCA) complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (trading as Barclays Partner Finance)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs L purchased a fractional timeshare membership in April 2009 for £17,065.90 financed by Clydesdale Financial Services Limited. In November 2023, over 14 years later, she claimed the lender was party to an unfair credit relationship and sought to claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, alleging misrepresentation regarding the tier of membership and booking availability. The ombudsman rejected both claims: the Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and the Section 140A unfair relationship claim failed because the purchase documentation clearly specified the 'Red/High' tier purchased (not 'Peak'), Mrs L had prior knowledge of tier limitations from a 2006 purchase, and there was insufficient evidence of unaffordable lending, improper pressure, or unfair contract terms being operated against her. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs L's Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as she did not make her claim until 2023, well over six years after the alleged misrepresentations or breaches occurred in 2009. Mrs L's own statement demonstrated she was aware of the tier limitations soon after purchase when she attempted to book peak times. Regarding the Section 140A unfair relationship claim, the ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentations or breaches of contract. The purchase documentation clearly showed Mrs L purchased 'Red/High' tier membership, not 'Peak' tier, and Mrs L's own prior experience with a similar membership in 2006 demonstrated she knew the difference before the 2009 purchase. The ombudsman found no evidence that the lending was unaffordable, that Mrs L was pressured into the purchase (particularly given she did not use the 14-day cooling-off period), or that any alleged regulatory breaches rendered the relationship unfair in practice.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website