Not upheld: misrepresentation claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; unfair credit relationship claim under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S purchased a timeshare membership on 31 May 2009, financed by a credit agreement with the Lender for £19,701. On 16 September 2024—over 15 years later—Mr S complained that the Supplier had made misrepresentations at the Time of Sale and sought recourse against the Lender under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Lender rejected the claim as being made outside the six-year limitation period. The Ombudsman upheld the Lender's position, finding that the cause of action accrued on 31 May 2009 and Mr S's claim on 16 September 2024 was therefore time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The Ombudsman rejected arguments that Section 32 of the Limitation Act (which postpones the limitation period for fraud, concealment, or mistake) applied, as insufficient evidence was provided. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that the cause of action accrued on 31 May 2009 (the Time of Sale), when Mr S entered into the agreement based on the alleged misrepresentations and suffered loss through the financed purchase. Under the Limitation Act 1980, Mr S had six years from this date to make a claim, meaning the deadline was 31 May 2015. Since Mr S did not make his claim until 16 September 2024, it was made outside the limitation period. The Ombudsman rejected the argument that Section 32 of the Limitation Act (which postpones the limitation period for fraud, concealment, or mistake) applied, as the PR had not provided persuasive evidence of fraud, concealment, or mistake. The Ombudsman concluded it was not unfair for the Lender to rely on the Limitation Act as a defence to decline the claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website