Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Tandem Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6446152 of 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00. Other regulated complaint complaint against Tandem Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6446152 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Tandem Bank Limited |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | Other regulated complaint |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr R complained that Tandem Bank Limited acted unfairly by being party to an unfair credit relationship and by rejecting his Section 75 claims against the supplier for misrepresentation and breach of contract relating to a £10,999 timeshare purchase in 2018. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence of actionable misrepresentation, no breach of contract, and that even if the supplier had breached the prohibition on marketing timeshares as investments, this would not have materially affected Mr R's decision, as his motivation was the holiday benefits rather than investment returns. The ombudsman also found the 2.5% commission arrangement, though possibly inadequately disclosed, was not disproportionately high and would not have changed Mr R's purchasing decision. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied a holistic approach to assess fairness under Section 140A, considering: (1) whether there were actionable misrepresentations by the supplier - finding insufficient evidence of false statements of fact; (2) whether the supplier breached the prohibition on marketing timeshares as investments under Regulation 14(3) - finding it possible but not determinative; (3) whether any such breach would have materially affected Mr R's purchasing decision - finding it would not, as Mr R's motivation was holiday benefits not investment returns; (4) the commission arrangement - finding the 2.5% rate was not disproportionately high compared to the Supreme Court's guidance and Mr R had sufficient information to understand the cost; (5) information provision - finding no material failings that would have changed Mr R's decision. The ombudsman concluded that even if regulatory breaches occurred, they did not render the credit relationship unfair given Mr R's actual motivations and the absence of material detriment.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Tandem Bank Limited, all decisions | 134 | 9% |
| Other regulated complaint, all decisions | 18,717 | 18% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 23,643 | 29% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website