Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R purchased fractional timeshare memberships in 2012 and 2013, financed through credit agreements with the lender. He later complained that the supplier misrepresented the product and that the lender participated in an unfair credit relationship, citing alleged breaches of the Timeshare Regulations and undisclosed commission arrangements. The ombudsman found no evidence of actionable misrepresentation or breach of contract. Although acknowledging the supplier may have breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the product as an investment, the ombudsman concluded this did not render the credit relationship unfair because Mr R's original complaint documents did not allege investment potential motivated his purchase, the commission amounts were modest, and Mr R had adequate pricing information and cooling-off periods. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation or breach of contract by the supplier. While acknowledging it was possible the supplier breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing membership as an investment, this did not render the credit relationship unfair because: (1) Mr R's original complaint and signed complaint form made no allegation that investment potential motivated his purchase; (2) the prospect of financial gain was not an important motivating factor; (3) the commission amounts were modest (6.74% and 10% of loan amounts) compared to the 55% in the Supreme Court's Johnson case; (4) Mr R was provided with clear pricing information and had cooling-off periods; (5) regulatory breaches do not automatically create unfairness under Section 140A; and (6) Mr R would have proceeded with the purchases regardless of any disclosure failures.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website