Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim rejection; alleged misrepresentation and breach of contract by timeshare supplier complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC, trading as Novuna Personal Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs J complained that Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC (Novuna Personal Finance) unfairly rejected her Section 75 claim against a timeshare supplier for alleged misrepresentation regarding ease of booking and value for money, and breach of contract relating to holiday availability and Covid-19 restrictions. The Lender rejected the claim, and Mrs J referred the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The ombudsman found the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as it was made more than six years after the Time of Sale on 27 April 2019. Additionally, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence of breach of contract, and noted that the Supplier's 30-month membership extension adequately addressed pandemic-related impacts. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Limitation Act 1980 to determine that Mrs J's Section 75 claim was time-barred. The cause of action accrued on 27 April 2019 (Time of Sale), and the six-year limitation period expired before Mrs J notified the Lender on 1 December 2025. It is neither unfair nor unreasonable for a lender to reject claims made after the limitation period has expired. Regarding the breach of contract allegations: the Supplier's administration did not prevent Mrs J from using her membership; holiday availability was contractually subject to demand and Mrs J successfully used the membership once; and the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, while frustrating performance, do not constitute a breach by the Supplier as they were circumstances beyond anyone's control. The Supplier's extension of the membership by 30 months was a proportionate remedy for the pandemic impact.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website