Not upheld: unfair credit relationship; alleged breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations (marketing timeshare as investment); alleged failure to provide key information about ongoing costs complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited, trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs P complained that Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (trading as Barclays Partner Finance) acted unfairly by being party to an unfair credit relationship when financing her purchase of Signature Collection timeshare membership for £13,680 on 26 February 2018. The Signature Collection was asset-backed, offering both holiday rights and a share in the net sale proceeds of an allocated property. Mrs P alleged the Supplier breached Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations by marketing the membership as an investment and failed to provide sufficient information about ongoing costs. The ombudsman found that while a breach of Regulation 14(3) was possible, Mrs P's statement describing her motivation was unreliable as it was provided after the Shawbrook & BPF v FOS judgment, creating a real risk her recollections were influenced by that case. The ombudsman concluded that Mrs P's purchase was not motivated by the prospect of financial gain and therefore the credit relationship was not unfair, even if a regulatory breach had occurred. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that while it was possible the Supplier breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the Signature Collection as an investment, regulatory breaches do not automatically render a credit relationship unfair under Section 140A. The key issue was whether the alleged breach actually motivated Mrs P's purchase decision. The ombudsman found Mrs P's statement unreliable because it was provided after the Shawbrook & BPF v FOS judgment, creating a real risk her recollections were influenced by that case. The statement's focus almost entirely on investment potential while omitting the holiday benefits and the additional benefit of staying in the allocated property (which Mrs P actually used) suggested the motivation was not as linear as presented. The ombudsman concluded that even if a breach occurred, Mrs P's purchase was not motivated by the prospect of financial gain, and therefore the credit relationship was not unfair. Additionally, while the Supplier may have failed to provide sufficient information about ongoing costs, this was not material to the outcome as Mrs P would likely have proceeded with the purchase regardless.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website