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

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs H complained that BPF acted unfairly by being party to an unfair credit relationship and by rejecting her Section 75 claim against the timeshare Supplier. She alleged the Supplier misrepresented the Fractional Club membership as an investment and guaranteed an exit date, and that BPF failed to disclose commission payments. The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation in the evidence, as Mrs H's own statement indicated she was motivated by the finite membership term rather than investment potential. While the Supplier may have breached the Timeshare Regulations prohibition on marketing timeshares as investments, this was not material to Mrs H's purchasing decision. The undisclosed commission of £465.53 (3.92% of the credit charge) was too low to render the credit relationship unfair under Section 140A, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's recent guidance. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation by the Supplier regarding exit terms or guarantees, as the contractual documentation was clear and Mrs H's own statement did not allege false statements. Any potential breach of contract regarding future property sale proceeds was uncertain and speculative. Regarding Section 140A, while the Supplier may have breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing the product as an investment, this was not material to Mrs H's decision to purchase, as her own evidence indicated she was motivated by the finite membership term rather than investment returns. The commission was low (3.92% of charge for credit) and would not have deterred her purchase. Regulatory breaches do not automatically render credit relationships unfair; the impact on the complainant must be considered holistically.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website