Not upheld: Section 75 claims handling and limitation period defence complaint against Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased timeshare memberships in 2012 financed by two loans from the Lender. He alleged the Supplier made misrepresentations about holiday availability and investment value, and raised Section 75 claims against the Lender in July 2025. The Lender rejected the claims as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The Ombudsman found that the six-year limitation period ran from the dates of sale in 2012, and Mr B's claims in 2025 were outside this period. The Ombudsman rejected arguments that Section 32 of the Limitation Act would extend the time limit, as evidence of the misrepresentations would have been discoverable earlier. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that the cause of action for misrepresentation accrued at the Times of Sale (14 January 2012 and 11 April 2012), when Mr B entered into agreements based on alleged misrepresentations and suffered loss through the financed purchases. Under the Limitation Act 1980, Mr B had six years from these dates to make a claim, but he did not do so until July 2025. The Ombudsman rejected arguments that Section 32 of the Limitation Act (which can postpone limitation periods in cases of fraud, concealment, or mistake) would extend the time limit, noting that evidence of the alleged misrepresentations (such as inability to holiday as promised and lack of genuine resale market) would have been discoverable well before July 2025. Therefore, it was not unfair for the Lender to rely on the Limitation Act defence to reject the claims.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website