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

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs R purchased a fractional timeshare membership in July 2008 for £23,950 using finance from the Lender. In October 2023, over 15 years later, Mrs R's professional representative made claims under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act (alleging misrepresentation) and Section 140A (alleging an unfair credit relationship). The Lender declined both claims. The ombudsman found the Section 75 claim time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 and found no evidence of unfairness in the credit relationship. The ombudsman noted inconsistencies in the PR's allegations, the friendly tone of correspondence over 17 years, and Mrs R's regular use of the membership and receipt of a return on her investment. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 as it was made in 2023, more than six years after the July 2008 purchase. For the Section 140A unfair relationship claim, the ombudsman found no persuasive evidence of actionable misrepresentation or breach of contract. The ombudsman noted that regulatory breaches do not automatically create unfairness under Section 140A, and the impact on the complainant must be demonstrated. The ombudsman found the PR's later allegations of high-pressure sales tactics inconsistent with the friendly tone of email correspondence over 17 years and the absence of such allegations in the original October 2023 claim. The ombudsman also noted that Mrs R received a significant return on her investment and regularly used the membership throughout the term.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website