Not upheld: unfair credit relationship; alleged breach of Timeshare Regulations Regulation 14(3) (marketing/selling timeshare as investment); alleged failure to provide sufficient information on ongoing costs complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs K complained that Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (trading as Barclays Partner Finance) was party to an unfair credit relationship when it financed her purchase of Fractional Club timeshare membership for £13,348 in November 2015. She alleged the Supplier breached Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations by marketing the product as an investment and failed to provide sufficient information about ongoing costs. The ombudsman acknowledged that a breach of Regulation 14(3) was possible but found it was not material to the fairness of the credit relationship because the evidence demonstrated that Mrs and Mr K's purchase decision was primarily motivated by the holiday benefits of the membership rather than the prospect of financial gain from the property share. The ombudsman was critical of Mrs K's witness statement, finding it likely influenced by knowledge of a similar case judgment, and concluded that the credit relationship was not unfair under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a holistic analysis under Section 140A, examining the Supplier's sales practices, information provision, and commission arrangements. While acknowledging that the Supplier may have breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the product as an investment, the ombudsman found this was not material to the outcome because the evidence demonstrated that Mrs and Mr K's purchase decision was primarily motivated by the holiday benefits of the membership, not the prospect of financial gain from the property share. The ombudsman was critical of Mrs K's witness statement, noting it was drafted after a similar case judgment and contained phrases similar to other statements from the same representative, suggesting it may have been influenced by knowledge of that case rather than representing Mrs K's genuine recollections. The ombudsman concluded that even if regulatory breaches occurred, they did not render the credit relationship unfair given the actual motivations behind the purchase.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website