Clydesdale Financial Services Limited · DRN-6246411

The complaint Mrs P’s complaint is, in essence, that Clydesdale Financial Services Limited trading as Barclays Partner Finance (the ‘Lender’) acted unfairly and unreasonably by (1) being party to an unfair credit relationships with her under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) (the ‘CCA’) and (2) deciding against paying a claims under Section 75 of the CCA. What happened Mrs P1 was a member of a timeshare provider (the ‘Supplier’), having purchased several timeshares from it over time (including Signature Collection membership in September 2014, one week equivalent to 2,330 bi-annual fractional points for £9,019 funded by another credit provider). However, this complaint is about Mrs P’s purchases as follows: 1. Purchase Agreement One – 17 November 2014 – Fractional Property Owners Club (‘FPOC’) membership – 4,950 annual fractional points – paid £8,659 after presumably trading in existing timeshares. 2. Purchase Agreement Two – 16 November 2015 – Signature Collection membership – one week equivalent to 2,200 annual fractional points – paid £11,239. 3. Purchase Agreement Three – 22 November 2016 – Signature Collection membership – one week equivalent to 2,200 bi-annual fractional points – paid £12,594. (which, when appropriate, I’ll simply refer to as the ’Purchase Agreements’ and the Time/s of Sale) On 14 June 2016, Mrs P had also purchased a 1-week (equivalent to 2,200 annual fractional points) Signature Collection membership for £15,184. It is not clear how this was paid for but I’ve seen nothing to suggest the purchase was funded by the Lender. In any case, that purchase is not the subject of this complaint. Mrs P paid for the Purchase Agreements by taking the following amounts of finance of from the Lender: 1. £8,659 on 17 November 2014 (‘Credit Agreement One’). 2. £49,019 on 16 November 2015 (‘Credit Agreement Two’). The additional amount was used to re-finance/consolidate earlier loans. 3. £12,594 on 11 November 2016 (‘Credit Agreement Three’). (which, when appropriate, I’ll simply refer to as the ‘’Credit Agreements’) 1 Mrs P’s husband was also named on the Purchase Agreement, but he passed away in 2019.

-- 1 of 12 --

FPOC membership and Signature Collection membership were both asset backed – which meant they gave Mrs P more than just holiday rights. It also included a share in the net sale proceeds of the Allocated Property or Suite named on the Purchase Agreements after her membership term ends. FPOC provided a fixed number of fractional points annually, which could be used to purchase holidays through the Supplier and its affiliates. It did not provide any right to stay in the Allocated Property. Signature Collection membership gave Mrs P the right to stay in the Suite (a specific holiday apartment named on each Signature Collection Purchase Agreement) in the specified week each year (or every other year for biannual memberships). However, that week could be exchanged for fractional points in the amounts stated above to be used to book holidays (the same as FPOC membership). A professional representative (‘Representative B’) wrote to the Lender on 25 March 2020 to make a claim under Section 75 of the CCA. The Lender did not respond to the claim, so Representative B referred a complaint about this to the Financial Ombudsman Service on 16 April 2021. However, on 12 July 2023, Mrs P wrote to the Lender to inform it that she had no knowledge of the claim and complaint from Representative B. By that time, she had authorised another professional representative, which I’ll refer to as ‘the PR’, to make a complaint in relation to the above Credit Agreements. The PR wrote to the Lender on 20 April 2023 (the ‘Letter of Complaint’) to raise several different concerns. Since then, the PR has raised some further matters it says are relevant to the outcome of this complaint. As both sides are familiar with the concerns raised, it isn’t necessary to repeat them in detail here beyond the summary above. The Lender didn’t respond to the complaint in the time allowed – initially refusing to do so on the basis that Representative B had already complained on Mrs P’s behalf. After some confusion, Mrs P has confirmed, via her attorney, that the PR is representing her in this matter. The complaint was assessed by our Investigator who, having considered the information on file, rejected the complaint on its merits. The PR disagreed with the Investigator’s assessment and asked for an Ombudsman’s decision – which is why it was passed to me. I issued a provisional decision explaining why I was not planning to uphold this complaint. The Lender responded to accept the provisional decision and say it had nothing further to add. The PR responded to say that it disagreed and provided some further comments and documents for me to consider when making my final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Following the responses from both parties, I’ve considered the case afresh. Having done so, I’ve reached the same decision as that which I outlined in my provisional findings – and for

-- 2 of 12 --

broadly the same reasons. A copy of my provisional findings is below. As such, I do not uphold this complaint. START OF COPY OF PROVISIONAL FINDINGS Section 75 of the CCA: the Supplier’s misrepresentations at the Time of Sale The CCA introduced a regime of connected lender liability under Section 75 that affords consumers (“debtors”) a right of recourse against lenders that provide the finance for the acquisition of goods or services from third-party merchants (“suppliers”) if there is an actionable misrepresentation and/or breach of contract by the supplier. Certain conditions must be met if the protection afforded to consumers is engaged, including, for instance, the cash price of the purchase and the nature of the arrangements between the parties involved in the transaction. The Lender doesn’t dispute that the relevant conditions are met. But for reasons I’ll come on to below, it isn’t necessary to make any formal findings on them here. It was said in the Letter of Complaint that FPOC membership and Signature Collection membership had been misrepresented by the Supplier at the Times of Sale because Mrs P was: 1. Told by the Supplier that Signature Collection membership had a guaranteed end date when that was not true. 2. Told by the Supplier that she owned a ‘fraction’ of the Allocated Suite when that was not true as it was owned by a trustee. 3. Told by the Supplier that Signature Collection membership was an “investment” when that was not true. Neither the PR nor Mrs P have set out in any detail what words and/or phrases were allegedly used by the Supplier to misrepresent FPOC membership or Signature Collection membership for the reasons given in points 1 or 2. However, the PR says that such representations were untrue because the Allocated Suite was legally owned by a trustee and there was no indication of what duty of care it had to actively market and sell the property. Further, there is no guarantee that any sale will result at all, leaving prospective members to pay their annual management charge for an indefinite and unspecified period. However, I cannot see why the phrases in points 1 or 2 above would have been untrue at the Times of Sale even if they were said. It seems to me that they reflect the main thrust of the contracts Mrs P entered into. And while, under the relevant FPOC and Signature Collection Rules, the sale of the Allocated Suite could be postponed for up to two years, longer than that if there were problems selling and the ‘Owners’2 agreed, or for an otherwise specified period provided there was unanimous agreement in writing from the Owners, that does not render the representation above untrue. So, I am not persuaded that the representation above constituted a false statement of fact even if it was made. As for point 3, it does not strike me as a misrepresentation even if such a representation had been made by the Supplier (which I make no formal finding on). Telling prospective members that they were investing their money because they were buying a fraction or share of one of the Supplier’s properties was not untrue – nor was it untrue to tell prospective 2 Defined in the relevant rules as “a purchaser who has entered into a Purchase Agreement and has been issued with a Fractional Rights Certificate.”

-- 3 of 12 --

members that they would receive some money when the Allocated Property or Suite is sold. After all, purchasing FPOC membership and Signature Collection membership clearly included acquiring the rights to a share of the net sale proceeds of a specific property in a specific resort. And while the PR might question the exact legal mechanism used to give prospective members that interest, it did not change the fact that they acquired such an interest. The PR has raised other matters as potential misrepresentations, but it seems to me that they are not allegations of the Supplier saying something that was untrue. Rather, it is that Mrs P wasn’t told things about the way the membership worked – for example, that the obligation to pay management fees could continue if the Allocated Property or Allocated Suite is not sold by the specified Sale Date. It seems to me that these are allegations that Mrs P wasn’t given all the information she needed at the Times of Sale, and I will deal with this further below. So, while I recognise that Mrs P – and the PR – have concerns about the way in which Signature Collection membership was sold by the Supplier, when looking at the claim under Section 75 of the CCA, I can only consider whether there was a factual and material misrepresentation by the Supplier. For the reasons I’ve set out above, I’m not persuaded that there was. And that means that I don’t think that the Lender acted unreasonably or unfairly when it dealt with this Section 75 claim. Section 140A of the CCA: did the Lender participate in an unfair credit relationship? I’ve already explained why I’m not persuaded that FPOC membership and Signature Collection membership was actionably misrepresented by the Supplier at the Times of Sale. But there are other aspects of the sales process that, being the subject of dissatisfaction, I must explore with Section 140A in mind if I’m to consider this complaint in full – which is what I’ve done next. Having considered the entirety of the credit relationships between Mrs P and the Lender along with all of the circumstances of the complaint, I don’t think the credit relationship between them was likely to have been rendered unfair for the purposes of Section 140A. When coming to that conclusion, and in carrying out my analysis, I have looked at: 1. The standard of the Supplier’s commercial conduct – which includes its sales and marketing practices at the Time of Sale along with any relevant training material. 2. The provision of information by the Supplier at the Time of Sale, including the contractual documentation and disclaimers made by the Supplier. 3. The commission arrangements between the Lender and the Supplier at the Time of Sale and the disclosure of those arrangements. 4. Evidence provided by both parties on what was likely to have been said and/or done at the Time of Sale. 5. The inherent probabilities of the sale given its circumstances. 6. Any existing unfairness from a related credit agreement.

-- 4 of 12 --

I have then considered the impact of these on the fairness of the credit relationship between Mrs P and the Lender. The Supplier’s sales & marketing practices at the Time of Sale Mrs P’s complaint about the Lender being party to an unfair credit relationship was and is made for several reasons. They include allegations that: 1. The right checks weren’t carried out before the Lender lent to Mrs P. 2. The fact that the loan was used to refinance an earlier one wasn’t set out on the face of Credit Agreement Two. However, none of strikes me as a reason why this complaint should succeed. I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that the right checks weren’t carried out by the Lender given this complaint’s circumstances. But even if I were to find that the Lender failed to do everything it should have when it agreed to lend (and I make no such finding), I would have to be satisfied that the money lent to Mrs P was actually unaffordable, before also concluding that she lost out as a result and then consider whether the credit relationships with the Lender were unfair to her for this reason. But from the information provided, I am not satisfied that the lending was unaffordable for Mrs P. I can see that Mrs P stopped making her loan repayments in June 2022 due to financial difficulties. But I have seen nothing to suggest those difficulties were reasonably foreseeable at the Times of Sale. The PR says that the fact that the loan under Credit Agreement Two was used to refinance an earlier one wasn’t set out on the credit agreement, the upshot of which is to suggest that the Lender wasn’t permitted to enforce Credit Agreement Two. However, it looks to me like Mrs P knew, amongst other things, how much she was borrowing and repaying each month, who she was borrowing from, that she was refinancing an earlier loan or loans, and that she was borrowing money to pay for Signature Collection membership. And as the lending doesn’t look like it was unaffordable for her at the Time of Sale, even if the Credit Agreement didn’t contain all the information it needed to (which I make no formal finding on), I can’t see why that led to Mrs P experiencing a financial loss – such that I can say that the credit relationship in question was unfair on her as a result. And with that being the case, I’m not persuaded that it would be fair or reasonable to tell the Lender to compensate her. Overall, therefore, I don’t think that Mrs P’s credit relationships with the Lender were rendered unfair to her under Section 140A for any of the reasons above. But there is another reason why the PR now says the credit relationships with the Lender were unfair to her. And that’s the suggestion that FPOC membership and Signature Collection membership was marketed and sold to her as an investment in breach of the prohibition against selling timeshares in that way. The Supplier’s alleged breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations The Lender does not dispute, and I am satisfied, that Mrs P’s FPOC and Signature Collection memberships met the definition of a “timeshare contract” and was a “regulated contract” for the purposes of the Timeshare Regulations.

-- 5 of 12 --

Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations prohibited the Supplier from marketing or selling Signature Collection membership as an investment. This is what the provision said at the Time of Sale: “A trader must not market or sell a proposed timeshare contract or long-term holiday product contract as an investment if the proposed contract would be a regulated contract.” But the PR and Mrs P say that the Supplier did exactly that at the Times of Sale. The term “investment” is not defined in the Timeshare Regulations. But for the purposes of this provisional decision, and by reference to the decided authorities, an investment is a transaction in which money or other property is laid out in the expectation or hope of financial gain or profit. A share in the net sale proceeds of the Allocated Property or Suite could constitute an investment as it offered Mrs P the prospect of a financial return – whether or not, like all investments, that was more than what she first put into it. But it is important to note at this stage that the fact that FPOC membership and Signature Collection membership included an investment element did not, itself, transgress the prohibition in Regulation 14(3). That provision prohibits the marketing and selling of a timeshare contract as an investment. It doesn’t prohibit the mere existence of an investment element in a timeshare contract or prohibit the marketing and selling of such a timeshare contract per se.3 In other words, the Timeshare Regulations did not ban products such as the FPOC and Signature Collection. They just regulated how such products were marketed and sold. To conclude, therefore, that FPOC membership or Signature Collection membership was marketed or sold to Mrs P as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3), I have to be persuaded that it was more likely than not that the Supplier marketed and/or sold membership to her as an investment at the relevant Time of Sale, i.e. told her or led her to believe that Signature Collection membership offered her the prospect of a financial gain (i.e., a profit) given the facts and circumstances of this complaint. There is competing evidence in this complaint as to whether FPOC membership and Signature Collection membership was marketed and/or sold by the Supplier at the Time of Sale as an investment in breach of regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations. On the one hand, the Supplier made efforts to avoid specifically describing membership of FPOC and Signature Collection as an ‘investment’ or quantifying to prospective purchasers, such as Mrs P, the financial value of their share in the net sales proceeds of the Allocated Property or Suite along with the investment considerations, risks and rewards attached to them. On the other hand, I think that the Supplier’s sales process left open the possibility that the sales representative may have positioned FPOC membership or Signature Collection membership as an investment. So, I accept that it’s equally possible that FPOC membership and/or Signature Collection membership was marketed and sold to Mrs P as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3). 3 The PR has argued that Signature Collection membership amounted to an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme, however this was considered and rejected in the judgment in R (on the application of Shawbrook Bank Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd and R (on the application of Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd (t/a Barclays Partner Finance)) v Financial Ombudsman Service [2023] EWHC 1069 (Admin).

-- 6 of 12 --

However, whether there was a breach of the relevant prohibition by the Supplier is not ultimately determinative of the outcome in this complaint for reasons I will come on to shortly. And with that being the case, it’s not necessary to make a formal finding on that issue for the purposes of this decision. Was the credit relationship between the Lender and Mrs P rendered unfair? Having found that it was possible that the Supplier breached Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations at the Time of Sale, I now need to consider what impact that breach had on the fairness of the credit relationships between Mrs P and the Lender under the Credit Agreements and related Purchase Agreements as the case law on Section 140A makes it clear that regulatory breaches do not automatically create unfairness for the purposes of that provision. Such breaches and their consequences (if there are any) must be considered in the round, rather than in a narrow or technical way. Indeed, it seems to me that, if I am to conclude that a breach of Regulation 14(3) led to a credit relationships between Mrs P and the Lender that were unfair to her and warranted relief as a result, it is important for me to consider whether the Supplier’s breach of Regulation 14(3) led her to enter into the Purchase Agreements and the Credit Agreements. Based on the evidence available, I do not think I can fairly and reasonably conclude that the prospect of a financial gain from FPOC membership or Signature Collection membership was an important and motivating factor when Mrs P decided to go ahead with her purchases. I say this for the following reasons. On 6 May 2025, the PR provided a typed unsigned statement from Mrs P dated 20 October 2022. This does not specifically describe what happened at the Time of Sale. It speaks generally about purchases of FPOC and Signature Collection memberships from the Supplier in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 – including three purchases that are not the subject of this complaint, the first of which was purchased before Purchase Agreement One. It said that “We upgraded to Fractionals. We thought we might use it towards a holiday home as we owned part of it and would get some money… Upgraded in 2015, 2016 and 2017 – all fractionals.” This speaks of merely getting some money back rather than making a profit. So, it is not clear that the prospect of making a profit played any part in Mrs P’s thinking for any of the purchases. She does not provide details for any particular sale, for example, what happened, where the sale took place, or what she was told about what she was buying. So, this is not very persuasive evidence. And Mrs P’s reason for purchasing at the Times of Sale are not clear – was she planning to use the money back to buy a holiday home at the end of the 19 years when she would be at least 87 years old? I note that the PR later provided a handwritten note which purports to have been made in a call with Mrs P (which informed the above statement). This goes further than the statement in that it says: “Fractional bought as wanted to use sales profit towards buying a holiday home - owned part of it… Wanted to buy own hol home i/c profits from fractional.”

-- 7 of 12 --

So, the call note, which supposedly informed the typed statement, clearly mentions profit twice. If that had been what Mrs P said, and that was important to her decision to purchase at the Time of Sale, I would’ve expected that to be made clear in the statement. I cannot see why Mrs P would’ve mentioned this in the phone call, but it not be in the statement – unless the call note was inaccurate and this was corrected prior to the statement being typed. In December 2024, the PR provided a letter of authority and “S75 claim details” form, dated 25 March 2020, from Representative B which made the Section 75 claim to the Lender in 2020 and referred the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service on 16 April 2021. This included the following questions and answers: “Did you purchase as a financial investment? Yes, they told us the fractions would go up in value because it was property Were you told the product would hold its value? Yes, it would go up in value. Were you advised you could resell at anytime? No, we were told we had to keep it for 19 years… Why did you buy the product? We were told we had to buy the new products to be able to get a return on our investment. Why do you want your money back? We have been misrepresented, we won't get any money back from CLC because the properties won't be sold.” This seems to quite clearly say that Mrs P purchased the timeshares as an investment. However, the questionnaire covered all her purchases from the Supplier. So, much like the above statement and call note, it was general rather than specifically about a particular purchase and does not include any context around what happened at the Times of Sale (such as where the sale took place, what was said etc). It also included a potentially leading and closed question, “Did you purchase as an investment?” This risked introducing the idea of the timeshares being investments before going on to ask “Why did you buy the product?” Rather than simply asking the second question and allowing the customer to explain their own reasons in their own words. However, when asked why the product was purchased, the answer was that Mr and Mrs P had to in order to get a return. It seems to me that is more likely something that may have been said upon Mrs P first purchasing a fractional timeshare, which was before she entered Purchase Agreement One. I say this because it seems likely that Mrs P previously had a non-fractional timeshare – that is, one which was not linked to a property and which would not provide anything other than holidays (so, no money back at the end). However, I have a more compelling reason to give little weight to the S75 claim details document (and the associated complaint made in 2020) when reaching my decision. And that is that on 12 July 2023 Mrs P wrote to the other credit provider to say:

-- 8 of 12 --

“I understand from [the PR] that you are refusing to look at my 2 complaints that they have submitted to you on the 20th April 2023. Apparently, this is on the basis that a similar complaint has already been raised by an unknown 3rd party on my behalf. To my knowledge I am unaware of this. Could you please send me a copy of my Letter of Authority for this 3rd part and a copy of the complaint(s) that they have submitted to you. Please advise me of the name of this 3rd party.” So, it seems that Mrs P had no recollection of agreeing to that earlier complaint, nor of completing the above S75 claim details form. With that being the case, I do not find it to be persuasive evidence of what happened at the Times of Sale. Overall, I find the evidence in this case is not enough for me to fairly and reasonably conclude that Mrs P was motivated to purchase FPOC membership or Signature Collection membership at the Times of Sale because she hoped or expected to profit from it. Indeed, I can see that between September 2014 and October 2017, Mrs P purchased one FPOC membership and five Signature Collection memberships, spending over £56,000 overall, and each time it appears she gained more holiday rights. Two of those purchases were made just two months apart. From this it appears that Mrs P was a big fan of the Supplier’s offering. On balance, therefore, even if the Supplier marketed or sold Signature Collection membership as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations, I am not persuaded that Mrs P’s decisions to purchase FPOC membership or Signature Collection membership at the Times of Sale were motivated by the prospect of a financial gain (i.e., a profit). I have no convincing reason to conclude she would not have pressed ahead with her purchases regardless of whether there had been a breach of Regulation 14(3). And for that reason, I do not think the credit relationships between Mrs P and the Lender were unfair to her even if the Supplier did breach Regulation 14(3). The provision of information by the Supplier at the Time of Sale The PR says that Mrs P was not given sufficient information at the Time of Sale by the Supplier about Signature Collection membership, including about the ongoing costs. As I’ve already indicated, the case law on Section 140A makes it clear that it does not automatically follow that regulatory breaches create unfairness for the purposes of the unfair relationship provisions. The extent to which such mistakes render a credit relationship unfair must also be determined according to their impact on the complainant. I acknowledge that it is also possible that the Supplier did not give Mrs P sufficient information, in good time, on the various charges she could have been subject to as Signature Collection members in order to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 12 of the Timeshare Regulations (which was concerned with the provision of ‘key information’). But even if that was the case, I cannot see that the ongoing costs of membership were applied unfairly in practice. And as neither Mrs P nor the PR have persuaded me that she would not have pressed ahead with her purchase had the finer details of the Signature Collection’s ongoing costs been disclosed by the Supplier in compliance with Regulation 12, I cannot see why any failings in that regard are likely to be material to the outcome of this complaint given its facts and circumstances. Mrs P’s concerns about undisclosed commission I note that one of Mrs P’s concerns relates to alleged payments of commission by the Lender to the Supplier for acting as a credit broker and arranging the Credit Agreement.

-- 9 of 12 --

However, the PR has since accepted our approach on this issue. And that in this case, any commission paid (a maximum of 10% of the amount borrowed for Credit Agreement One and a maximum of 2.5% of the amount borrowed for Credit Agreement Two and Credit Agreement Three) and the commercial arrangements between the Lender and the Supplier would not lead to this complaint being upheld. END OF COPY OF PROVISIONAL FINDINGS The PR’s response to my provisional findings about an unfair relationship My role as an Ombudsman isn’t to address every single point which has been made to date, but to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. If I haven’t commented on, or referred to, something that either party has said, this doesn’t mean I haven’t considered it. Rather, I’ve focused here on addressing what I consider to be the key issues in deciding this complaint and explaining the reasons for reaching my final decision. The PR’s further comments in response to the provisional decision only relate to the issue of whether the credit relationships between Mrs P and the Lender were unfair. In particular, the PR has provided further comments in relation to whether the memberships were sold to Mrs P as an investment at the Time of Sale. As outlined in my provisional decision, the PR originally raised various other points of complaint, all of which I addressed at that time. But they didn’t make any further comments in relation to those in their response to my provisional decision. Indeed, they haven’t said they disagree with any of my provisional conclusions in relation to those other points. And since I haven’t been provided with anything more in relation to those other points by either party, I see no reason to change my conclusions in relation to them as set out in my provisional decision. So, I’ll focus here on the PR’s points raised in response. The PR has provided further comments and evidence which in my view relate to whether the FPOC and Signature Collection memberships were marketed or sold as investments in breach of the prohibition in Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations. However, as I explained in my provisional decision, while the Supplier’s sales processes left open the possibility that the sales representative may have positioned FPOC and/or Signature Collection membership as an investment, it isn’t necessary to make a finding on this as it is not determinative of the outcome of the complaint. I explained that Regulatory breaches do not automatically create unfairness and that such breaches and their consequences (if there are any) must be considered in the round, rather than in a narrow or technical way. The PR’s comments and evidence in this respect do not persuade me that I should uphold Mrs P’s complaint, because they do not make me think it’s any more likely that the Supplier’s breach/es of Regulation 14(3), if there were any, led Mrs P to enter into the Purchase Agreements and the Credit Agreements. The PR has provided its further thoughts as to Mrs P’s likely motivations for purchasing FPOC and Signature Collection membership. I recognise it has interpreted Mrs P’s evidence differently to how I have and thinks it is persuasive evidence of her having been motivated by the prospect of a financial gain from FPOC and Signature Collection membership. In my provisional decision, I explained the reasons why I didn’t think Mrs P’s purchases were motivated by the prospect of a financial gain (i.e., a profit). I have carefully considered the PR’s arguments in response to this. The PR has provided new evidence that shows Mrs P has had significant mental and physical health issues since 2021, including some which could impact on her memory. The

-- 10 of 12 --

PR argues that there is no reason to question the reliability of Mrs P’s memory prior to 2021. And that I should therefore give more weight to the S75 claim details form, which she completed herself in 2020. I now accept that the S75 claim details form ought to be given greater weight as evidence than I gave it when making my provisional decision. It seems that Mrs P’s mental health issues since 2021 are likely to explain why Mrs P does not remember engaging Representative B or completing the S75 claim details form, even though she did do so. However, I think the comments in my provisional decision about what was written on the form are still valid. To summarise: • The form covered multiple purchases from the Supplier by Mrs P, including three purchases that are not the subject of this complaint. Her comments did not specifically describe what happened at each Time of Sale and so lacks detail about what happened when. • It includes potentially leading and closed questions which risked introducing the idea of the purchase being an investment before asking why Mrs P bought the timeshares. • Mrs P’s description of why she purchased appears likely to be applicable only to her first FPOC purchase, which is not the subject of this complaint. So, the question is whether I find this evidence (alongside all the other evidence in this case) sufficiently plausible and persuasive for me to uphold this complaint on the basis that a breach of Regulation 14(3) by the Suppler was material to Mrs P’s decisions to enter into the Purchase Agreements and Credit Agreements. And I do not. The PR has clarified that the typed document I referred to as a statement from Mrs P was just a typed-up version of its call notes rather than a statement made by Mrs P. But my concerns about those two documents remain – like the S75 claim details form they speak generally about multiple timeshare purchases (rather than being specific to each individual Time of Sale), and its explanation of what motivated the purchases seemed fairly implausible (although I accept it is possible that Mrs P held such a motivation, I do not think on the balance of probabilities it is likely). It is also inconsistent in that the call note mentions profit but the typed-up version does not. I, even if they had been more persuasive, given Mrs P’s mental health issues since 2021, there is some reason to treat with caution her recollections given to the PR in October 2022. Neither the S75 claim details form nor the PR’s call note/typed-up version go into detail about what happened at each Time of Sale. They give different explanations for why Mrs P purchased the timeshares. While they suggest that the timeshares being an investment playing a part, I do not find them sufficiently plausible and persuasive to conclude this was material to her decision to purchase on any specific occasion. The evidence here covers multiple sales of two different types of timeshares (including some that are not the subject of this complaint) and there is little to distinguish between those sales in what Mrs P wrote. The PR argues that means all the timeshares were purchased as investments, but I do not find the evidence of that to be persuasive enough for me to fairly and reasonably uphold this complaint for any of the Times of Sale. The PR also suggests that the Supplier exploited Mrs P’s vulnerability at the Times of Sale. But I have seen no evidence that indicates she was vulnerable at those times. Her health issues appear to have come to the fore in 2021. While some of those issues could have

-- 11 of 12 --

caused symptoms before then, I have no reason to conclude that they were both an issue at any of the Times of Sale or that the Supplier ought to have been aware of them at those times. As such, I am not persuaded by the PR’s suggestion in this regard. Ultimately, I remain unpersuaded that any breach of Regulation 14(3), if there were any, was material to Mrs P’s purchasing decisions. And for that reason, I do not think the credit relationship between Mrs P and the Lender were unfair to Mrs P even if the Supplier had breached Regulation 14(3). Conclusion In conclusion, I do not think that the Lender acted unfairly or unreasonably when it dealt with the relevant Section 75 claims, and I am not persuaded that the Lender was party to credit relationships with Mrs P under the Credit Agreements that was unfair to her for the purposes of Section 140A of the CCA – nor do I see any other reason why it would be fair or reasonable to direct the Lender to compensate Mrs P. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Phillip Lai-Fang Ombudsman

-- 12 of 12 --