Not upheld: unfair credit relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; alleged misrepresentation under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; alleged breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations 2010; alleged undisclosed commission complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L purchased Fractional Club timeshare membership in August 2013 for £8,160, financed through a credit agreement with Clydesdale Financial Services Limited. The membership included fractional points and a share in net sale proceeds of an allocated property. In September 2018, Mr L's professional representative raised complaints alleging misrepresentation by the supplier, breach of the Timeshare Regulations prohibition on marketing timeshares as investments, unfair contract terms, and undisclosed commission payments. The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation, no evidence that Mr L's purchase was motivated by investment prospects (making any regulatory breach immaterial), and no unfair commission arrangements. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a holistic approach to Section 140A analysis, finding that regulatory breaches do not automatically create unfairness. The key finding was that Mr L's purchase was not motivated by the prospect of financial gain from the allocated property, making any potential breach of Regulation 14(3) (prohibition on marketing timeshares as investments) immaterial to the purchasing decision. The ombudsman rejected allegations of misrepresentation as lacking sufficient factual support and found no evidence of unfair commission arrangements. The ombudsman emphasised that causation matters: if Mr L would have purchased regardless of any breach, the breach cannot render the credit relationship unfair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website