Not upheld: misrepresentation of timeshare as investment; unfair credit relationship under Section 140A of Consumer Credit Act 1974; alleged breach of Regulation 14(3) of Timeshare Regulations; information failings; undisclosed commission and commercial tie complaint against First Holiday Finance Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs M complained that First Holiday Finance Ltd participated in unfair credit relationships by financing two timeshare purchases (2016 and 2018) that were allegedly misrepresented as investments by the supplier. They claimed the supplier breached regulations by marketing the product as an investment, failed to provide adequate information about costs and allocated properties, and that the undisclosed commercial tie between FHF and the supplier rendered the credit relationships unfair. The ombudsman found Mr and Mrs M's recollections unreliable due to material inconsistencies about the timing of the first purchase and concluded that financial gain was not a material motivating factor in their decisions, as evidenced by their focus on holiday accommodation and their voluntary upgrade. The ombudsman rejected all grounds of complaint, finding insufficient evidence of misrepresentation and no material impact from any regulatory breaches or information failings on the purchasing decisions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr and Mrs M provided insufficient evidence of specific misrepresentations made at the times of sale. Their recollections contained material inconsistencies regarding the timing of the first purchase and the circumstances of the deposit payment, undermining their reliability. Critically, the ombudsman concluded that the prospect of financial gain from the allocated properties was not an important and motivating factor in Mr and Mrs M's purchasing decisions, as evidenced by their focus on holiday accommodation and their upgrade at the second time of sale. Even if the supplier had breached Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations by marketing the product as an investment, such a breach would not have been material to their purchasing decisions. The ombudsman rejected arguments about pressure, noting the 14-day cooling-off periods were available and unused. Regarding information failings, the ombudsman found no evidence that additional disclosure would have changed their purchasing decisions. The undisclosed commercial tie between FHF and the supplier was not found to have led Mr and Mrs M to act to their detriment, as they likely ended up with FHF because they could not obtain external finance.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website