Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC, trading as Novuna Personal Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A purchased a 10-year timeshare membership for £18,630 financed by Novuna Personal Finance and subsequently complained that the supplier had misrepresented the product and breached the contract. Mr A claimed he was guaranteed annual two-week summer holidays, high accommodation standards, and exclusive member access, but found these unavailable. The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation as the supplier likely did not make absolute guarantees, the range of resorts was genuine, and accommodation standards are subjective. The ombudsman also found no breach of contract as the sales paperwork explicitly stated availability was subject to demand, and Mr A had successfully holidayed multiple times. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation because: (1) it was unlikely the supplier guaranteed sufficient points for the entire membership term given variable points requirements; (2) the supplier did offer a range of resorts and destinations which Mr A had accessed; (3) accommodation standards are subjective and the first resort visited did have exclusive member areas; (4) the Purchase Agreement explicitly stated availability was subject to demand; and (5) Mr A had successfully used the membership multiple times. No breach of contract was established because availability was contractually limited by demand, and unused points were rolled over rather than forfeited.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website