Not upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against Shawbrook Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M, a long-term timeshare customer, purchased Fractional Club memberships in May and October 2014, financed by loans from Shawbrook Bank Limited. She later complained that the Supplier had misrepresented the products and that the credit relationship was unfair, citing various alleged misrepresentations, aggressive sales practices, inadequate disclosure of ongoing costs, irresponsible lending, and undisclosed commission. The ombudsman rejected all grounds of complaint, finding no evidence of misrepresentations, no breach of consumer protection regulations, no evidence of unaffordable lending, and that the commission of £68.40 was minimal and would not have changed Mrs M's decision. The ombudsman also rejected late-stage arguments introduced by Mrs M's professional representative that conflicted with Mrs M's own testimony and lacked supporting evidence.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Section 75 and Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, finding that alleged misrepresentations were either not made or lacked persuasive evidence. Regarding the unfair credit relationship claim, the ombudsman found: (1) no breach of CPUT Regulations; (2) no evidence that information failings about ongoing costs caused significant harm or prejudiced Mrs M's decision; (3) no evidence the loans were unaffordable; (4) the Supplier did not market the timeshares as investments in breach of Regulation 14(3); and (5) the commission of £68.40 (1% of amount borrowed) was minimal and would not have changed Mrs M's decision had it been disclosed. The ombudsman rejected the professional representative's late-stage arguments, including new allegations of pressure/coercion unsupported by Mrs M's own testimony, and arguments about properties being encumbered by charges that did not exist at the time of purchase.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website