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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (trading as Barclays Partner Finance) acted unfairly by being party to an unfair credit relationship and by rejecting his Section 75 claim regarding a timeshare purchase. Mr D and Mrs D purchased Signature Collection timeshare membership in June 2015 for £36,724 (cash price), financed with £32,872 credit. The complaint alleged the Supplier misrepresented the product as an investment in breach of Timeshare Regulations, failed to provide adequate information, and breached the purchase agreement when it entered liquidation. The ombudsman rejected all claims: the Section 75 claim failed due to the cash price exceeding the £30,000 threshold; no actionable misrepresentation was proven; Mr D's primary motivation was improved holiday availability, not investment returns; and the Supplier's regulatory breaches, if any, did not render the credit relationship unfair. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a holistic assessment under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, considering the Supplier's sales practices, information provision, and regulatory compliance. Although finding it possible that the Supplier breached Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations by marketing the product as an investment, the ombudsman concluded this was not material to Mr D's purchasing decision. The evidence showed Mr D was primarily motivated by improved holiday availability and accommodation quality, not investment returns. The ombudsman rejected the Section 75 claim because the cash price (£36,724) exceeded the £30,000 threshold required for Section 75 protection. The ombudsman also found no evidence of breach of contract by the Supplier, as Mr D remained a member with continued holiday rights and entitlement to share in property sale proceeds.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website