Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P purchased Fractional Club timeshare membership in November 2016 for £16,644, financed by a £20,128 loan from Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (trading as Barclays Partner Finance). The membership included a share in an allocated property's net sale proceeds. In April 2023, more than six years later, Mr P complained that the Lender acted unfairly by rejecting his Section 75 claim for misrepresentation and by being party to an unfair credit relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Mr P alleged the Supplier had marketed the membership as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations and had failed to provide adequate information. The ombudsman found the Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 and that even if a regulatory breach had occurred, it was not material to Mr P's purchasing decision, which was motivated by reducing holiday costs rather than achieving financial profit. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the Section 75 claim was time-barred as it was raised more than six years after the Time of Sale (6 November 2016 to 5 April 2023), when the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 had expired. Regarding the Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim, the ombudsman concluded that even if the Supplier had breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the membership as an investment, this was not material to Mr P's purchasing decision. The evidence indicated Mr P was primarily motivated by reducing future holiday costs rather than achieving financial profit. The ombudsman rejected arguments about pressure, inadequate affordability checks, excessive interest rates, and lack of lender choice, finding insufficient evidence of unfairness. The ombudsman also rejected arguments about inadequate information disclosure and inheritance of management charges.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website