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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E purchased a timeshare membership in October 2015 using a £13,450 loan from BPF, claiming he was misled into buying a points-based product. He did not complain until March 2025, nearly ten years later, despite BPF offering to review the matter in May 2023. The ombudsman considered his claim under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but found it was barred by the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980. The ombudsman also found insufficient evidence of breach of contract and noted that BPF would not be liable because the financed timeshare contract was immediately terminated and replaced. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman considered the complaint under section 75 of the CCA, which makes a finance provider legally answerable for misrepresentation or breach of contract by the supplier if certain conditions are met. The ombudsman found that BPF could rely on the Limitation Act 1980 as a defence because Mr E's claim was made more than six years after the alleged misrepresentation in 2015. Additionally, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence of a breach of contract by the Supplier, and noted that even if there was a breach, BPF would not be liable because the timeshare contract it financed was terminated immediately and replaced with a different points-based contract.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website