Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a Fractional Club timeshare membership in June 2013 for £6,906, financed by a credit agreement with Barclays Partner Finance. In September 2023, over 10 years later, he complained that the supplier misrepresented the product as an investment and that the credit relationship was unfair due to undisclosed commission and potential breaches of the Timeshare Regulations. The ombudsman found the Section 75 claim time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 and rejected the Section 140A unfair relationship claim on multiple grounds: the alleged misrepresentations were not actionable; there was insufficient evidence of pressure or that investment prospects motivated the purchase; the commission of £690.60 (10% of loan) was not disproportionately high; and the supplier did not owe a fiduciary duty. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a holistic assessment under Section 140A, considering the supplier's sales practices, information provision, regulatory compliance, and commercial arrangements. The ombudsman found: (1) alleged misrepresentations about holiday security and investment potential were not actionable misrepresentations; (2) no credible evidence of pressure; (3) possible breach of Regulation 14(3) regarding marketing as investment, but Mr B's purchase motivation was not primarily investment-driven; (4) the commission of 10% was not disproportionately high compared to the Supreme Court's benchmark of 55% in Johnson's case; (5) the supplier did not owe a fiduciary duty to Mr B; (6) Mr B would have proceeded with the purchase regardless of commission disclosure; (7) the Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (6-year limit from time of sale).

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website