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

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S purchased a fractional timeshare membership in 2009 using a loan from BPF and complained in November 2024 that the Supplier had misrepresented the membership, raising a Section 75 claim against BPF. She also complained about non-disclosure of a commission payment. BPF rejected the complaint as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The ombudsman upheld BPF's position, finding that the six-year limitation period had been exceeded and that Mrs S's argument regarding Section 32 concealment provisions was not persuasive. The commission complaint was also rejected as BPF had not paid commission to the Supplier at the time of sale.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs S's Section 75 claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The cause of action arose when Mrs S entered into the agreements in 2009, giving her six years to bring the claim. By raising it in November 2024, she had exceeded this deadline by more than nine years. The ombudsman rejected the argument that Section 32 of the Limitation Act applied, as the alleged concealment did not relate to the original misrepresentations claimed. Regarding the commission complaint, the ombudsman found no detrimental impact on Mrs S since BPF did not pay commission to the Supplier at the time of sale.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website