Not upheld: Section 75 Consumer Credit Act claim and Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K purchased a timeshare in February 2018 financed by a £13,950 loan from Clydesdale Financial Services Limited. In January 2025, over six years later, Mr K complained that the Lender was responsible for the Supplier's alleged mis-sale of the timeshare and sought redress under Section 75 and Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The ombudsman found the majority of the Section 75 claim time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 and the non-time-barred portion lacking merit, as Mr K had successfully booked over 150 nights of holiday. The Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim also failed due to vague allegations, insufficient evidence of detriment, and contradictions with documentary evidence showing repayment terms were properly disclosed. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the majority of Mr K's Section 75 claim relating to misrepresentation was time-barred, as it was notified more than six years after the cause of action accrued on 21 February 2018. The limited portion of the Section 75 claim relating to alleged breaches of contract from 29 January 2019 onwards lacked merit due to vague allegations and evidence showing Mr K successfully used the product (150+ nights booked). The Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim failed because the allegations were vague, lacked sufficient detail and context, there was insufficient evidence of detriment, and some allegations were contradicted by evidence (such as the claim that repayment amounts were not disclosed, when they were prominently displayed on the signed agreement).

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website