Not upheld: unfair credit relationship under Section 140A CCA; connected lender liability under Section 75 CCA; misrepresentation; breach of Timeshare Regulations; unfair contract terms complaint against Shawbrook Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that Shawbrook Bank Limited acted unfairly by being party to an unfair credit relationship and by refusing to pay claims under Section 75 CCA relating to two timeshare purchases financed in March 2014 and May 2017. Mr D alleged misrepresentation, breach of the Timeshare Regulations, pressurised sales, and unfair contract terms. The ombudsman found that Mr D's Section 75 CCA claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as they were made more than six years after the cause of action accrued. For the Section 140A CCA claim relating to the second purchase, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence of unfairness, noting the limited weight of Mr D's statement and the generic nature of his representative's letter. The ombudsman also applied the Supreme Court's recent judgment on commission to find that the Supplier did not owe Mr D a fiduciary duty and that no commission was paid by the Lender at the time of sale. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Limitation Act 1980 to find that Mr D's Section 75 CCA claims were time-barred, as the cause of action accrued when he entered into the Purchase Agreements in March 2014 and May 2017, but claims were not made until December 2023 - more than six years later. For the Section 140A CCA claim relating to Credit Agreement 2, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence of unfairness. The ombudsman noted that Mr D's statement contained nothing about the second sale, and the professional representative's letter was generic and identical to letters in other cases, limiting the weight that could be attached to them. The ombudsman found that European Collection membership was not asset-backed and provided only holiday rights, and there was no evidence of a pressurised sale, lack of affordability assessment, or marketing as an investment in breach of the Timeshare Regulations. Regarding commission, the ombudsman applied the Supreme Court's judgment in Hopcraft, Johnson and Wrench, finding that the Supplier did not owe Mr D a fiduciary duty and that no commission was paid by the Lender to the Supplier at the time of sale, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court precedent.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website