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 a Section 75 claim regarding the purchase of Signature Collection timeshare membership for £10,504 financed through a credit agreement. Mr D alleged the supplier misrepresented the product as having a guaranteed end date and as an investment, and that the supplier breached the Purchase Agreement. The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation, as the share in the allocated property was inherently an investment and there was no evidence of a false guarantee regarding the end date. The ombudsman also found no breach of contract, as holiday availability was subject to demand and Mr D successfully used the membership. Regarding the unfair relationship claim under Section 140A, the ombudsman concluded the credit relationship was not unfair because the lending was affordable, Mr D's primary motivation was accessing accommodation rather than profit, and even if the supplier breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing as an investment, this did not render the credit relationship unfair given the absence of commission payments and the breach not being material to the purchasing decision. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no actionable misrepresentation by the supplier regarding a guaranteed end date or investment characterization, as the share in the allocated property was inherently an investment. Regarding Section 75 breach of contract claims, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence that the supplier breached the Purchase Agreement, noting that holiday availability was subject to demand and Mr D and Mrs D successfully used their membership. Under Section 140A, the ombudsman concluded the credit relationship was not unfair, finding that: (1) the lending was affordable; (2) there was insufficient evidence of pressure preventing Mr D's choice; (3) even if the supplier breached Regulation 14(3) by marketing as an investment, Mr D's primary motivation was accessing two weeks of accommodation, not profit; (4) no commission was paid by the lender to the supplier; and (5) regulatory breaches do not automatically render credit relationships unfair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website