Not upheld: unfair credit relationship under Section 140A CCA; rejection of Section 75 claim; alleged breach of Timeshare Regulations Regulation 14(3) complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D purchased Fractional Club timeshare membership in April 2015 for £3,850 using a credit agreement from Clydesdale Financial Services Limited. In October 2021, Mr D complained that the Lender acted unfairly by participating in an unfair credit relationship and by rejecting a Section 75 claim against the Supplier for alleged misrepresentation. The ombudsman found the Section 75 claim time-barred under the Limitation Act (six years from purchase). Regarding the Section 140A unfair relationship claim, the ombudsman concluded that while the Supplier may have breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the product as an investment, this was not material to Mr D's decision, as his primary motivation was holiday access and accommodation, not investment returns. 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 issue was whether any breach of Regulation 14(3) was material to Mr D's purchasing decision. The ombudsman concluded that Mr D's primary motivation was holiday access and accommodation, not investment returns, evidenced by his later willingness to relinquish the membership without expectation of financial gain. The Section 75 claim was rejected as time-barred under the Limitation Act, with the six-year limitation period running from the date of purchase (15 April 2015) to the date of claim (8 October 2021).

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website