Not upheld: Section 75 claim handling and limitation period complaint against Shawbrook Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs B purchased a timeshare in May 2014 using a loan from Shawbrook Bank Limited. In August 2025, they made a Section 75 claim alleging the supplier had misrepresented the product's features regarding holiday availability, bonus week usage, and booking flexibility. The Lender rejected the claim as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The Ombudsman upheld the Lender's decision, finding that the six-year limitation period had expired long before the claim was notified, as Mr and Mrs B would have discovered the misrepresentations when attempting to use the timeshare shortly after purchase. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that Section 75 claims mirror claims that could be made against the supplier and are subject to the same six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980. The cause of action for misrepresentation accrued on 13 May 2014 when the agreement was entered. Mr and Mrs B would have discovered the misrepresentations shortly after purchase when attempting to make bookings, certainly by 2018 when the product expired. The claim was notified in August 2025, well outside the six-year limitation period. The Ombudsman rejected arguments that the limitation period was extended under Section 32 of the Limitation Act, finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation or deliberate concealment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website