Not upheld: unfair credit relationship under section 140A CCA; section 75 CCA claims for misrepresentation; alleged breach of Timeshare Regulations 2010 Regulation 14(3) complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Consumer Finance
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6402186 of 2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00. unfair credit relationship under section 140A CCA; section 75 CCA claims for misrepresentation; alleged breach of Timeshare Regulations 2010 Regulation 14(3) complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Consumer Finance. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6402186 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Consumer Finance |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | unfair credit relationship under section 140A CCA; section 75 CCA claims for misrepresentation; alleged breach of Timeshare Regulations 2010 Regulation 14(3) |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr G complained that Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC (trading as Novuna Consumer Finance) acted unfairly by participating in an unfair credit relationship and rejecting his section 75 claims relating to timeshare purchases financed in April and August 2018. Mr G alleged the supplier misrepresented the Fractional Club membership and breached the Timeshare Regulations by marketing it as an investment. The ombudsman found that Mr G's primary motivation for purchase was to take holidays, not to make a financial profit, and that no actionable misrepresentations were established. Even assuming a breach of Regulation 14(3), the ombudsman concluded this would not have been causative of Mr G's purchasing decision. The complaint was not upheld, and the lender's rejection of the claims was found to be fair and reasonable.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied a holistic approach to section 140A, finding that regulatory breaches do not automatically render credit relationships unfair. The key finding was that Mr G's purchase was motivated primarily by the desire to take holidays, not by the prospect of financial gain from the allocated property. Therefore, even if the supplier had breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the product as an investment, this breach would not have been causative of Mr G's purchasing decision. The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentations in the sales materials and insufficient evidence of oral misrepresentations that amounted to false statements of fact. The lending was not shown to be unaffordable, and Mr G was not shown to have been pressured into the purchase given he had cooling-off periods and subsequently upgraded his membership.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Consumer Finance, all decisions | 7 | 0% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,070 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website