Not upheld: unfair credit relationship under Section 140A CCA 1974 and rejection of Section 75 claim complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited, trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M purchased a timeshare membership in September 2013 using £2,984 credit from the Lender. In April 2025, over 11 years later, she claimed the timeshare had been misrepresented as an investment and sought compensation under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, also alleging the credit relationship was unfair under Section 140A. The Lender rejected her claim. The ombudsman found the Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act as the six-year limitation period had expired, making the Lender's rejection reasonable. The ombudsman also found no evidence that Mrs M was pressured into the purchase or that investment motivation drove her decision, and concluded that even if the Supplier breached timeshare regulations, this did not render the credit relationship unfair. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs M's Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act as more than six years had passed between the Time of Sale (2 September 2013) and when she first notified the Lender (25 April 2025). The ombudsman concluded it was neither unfair nor unreasonable for the Lender to reject a claim made so long after the cause of action accrued. Regarding the Section 140A unfair credit relationship claim, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence that Mrs M was pressured into the purchase (noting she did not explain what made her feel she had no choice and did not use the 14-day cooling-off period), and that even if the Supplier breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the timeshare as an investment, Mrs M's own recollections did not demonstrate that investment motivation drove her decision to purchase. The ombudsman applied case law establishing that regulatory breaches do not automatically create unfairness under Section 140A; the impact on the complainant must be considered.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website