Not upheld: unfair credit relationship; possible breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations (marketing timeshare as investment); inadequate provision of information regarding ongoing costs complaint against Shawbrook Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6345426 of 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00. unfair credit relationship; possible breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations (marketing timeshare as investment); inadequate provision of information regarding ongoing costs complaint against Shawbrook Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6345426 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Shawbrook Bank Limited |
| Product | credit agreement for timeshare purchase |
| Claim type | unfair credit relationship; possible breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations (marketing timeshare as investment); inadequate provision of information regarding ongoing costs |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Ms R and Mr S complained that Shawbrook Bank Limited was party to an unfair credit relationship by financing their purchase of Fractional Club timeshare membership, which they alleged was marketed as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations. The ombudsman acknowledged the possibility of a regulatory breach by the supplier but found that Ms R and Mr S' evidence of being motivated by investment considerations was unreliable, given the eight-year delay in providing their statement, potential influence from recent case law, and discrepancies with the supplier's contemporaneous sales notes. The ombudsman concluded that even if a breach occurred, it did not render the credit relationship unfair, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman acknowledged that the supplier may have breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the Fractional Club as an investment, but found that regulatory breaches do not automatically render a credit relationship unfair under Section 140A. The key issue was whether Ms R and Mr S were motivated to purchase by the investment element. The ombudsman found Ms R and Mr S' recollections unreliable due to: (1) the statement being provided after the Shawbrook & BPF v FOS judgment, which may have influenced their recollections; (2) similarities with other complaints from the same representative suggesting potential influence; (3) the eight-year gap between the Time of Sale and their statement; and (4) discrepancies between their account and the supplier's contemporaneous sales notes. The ombudsman was not persuaded that the investment element motivated their purchase decision.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Shawbrook Bank Limited, all decisions | 2,486 | 17% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website