Shawbrook Bank Limited · DRN-6231314

The complaint Mr C says Shawbrook Bank Limited (‘Shawbrook’) has unfairly declined his claim under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘CCA’). And he says his creditor-debtor relationship with Shawbrook was unfair to him under section 140A of the CCA. What happened In May 2016 (the ‘Time of Sale’), Mr C purchased a timeshare membership from a timeshare provider (the ‘Supplier’). It cost €18,231. The membership was asset backed – which means it gave Mr C more than just holiday rights. It includes a share of the net sale proceeds of a property named on the purchase agreement (the ‘Allocated Property’) after the membership term ended. Mr C borrowed £14,950 from Shawbrook to pay for it. In March 2018, Mr C wrote to Shawbrook to complain about the purchase and the related loan. He specifically referred to section 75 of the CCA. He says he didn’t get what he paid for – although he doesn’t say what he didn’t get. Mr C also said the membership was misrepresented. He says the Supplier promised to help him relinquish a ‘holiday club’ membership that he owned; it ‘promised’ him that he would ‘never’ have a problem getting want he wanted, when he wanted it; and, it promised him that the membership was an investment that would be sold in 2030. Mr C doesn’t say which of these was a misrepresentation. The letter also refers to a long, exhausting, high-pressure sale, and complains about poor customer service from the Supplier. It cites several online forums where others have complained about the Supplier. Finally, Mr C says the Supplier didn’t tell him about the 14-day cooling off period or his cancellation rights. Shawbrook issued its final response letter on 1 November 2018. It rejected the complaint on every ground. The letter explained that Mr C could refer his complaint to our service for free – but he had to so within six months or Shawbrook wouldn’t give us permission to consider the complaint. In January 2019, a professional representative (‘PR1’) wrote to Shawbrook on Mr C’s behalf to make a claim under sections 75 and 140A of the CCA. It made several allegations. It said: the Supplier misrepresented the membership in various ways; the membership terms were unfair; the commission arrangements between Shawbrook and the Supplier weren’t disclosed and were unfair; the sale was long and the Supplier used high-pressure sales tactics; the membership was sold as an investment; the Supplier didn’t give Mr C sufficient time to read the paperwork; the Supplier failed to comply with the Finance Leasing Associations’ Code of Conduct; and, the Supplier didn’t conduct a proper assessment of Mr C’s ability to repay the loan. Shawbrook didn’t respond to the letter and PR1 referred the complaint to our service in November 2019. Shawbrook argued that we didn’t have jurisdiction to consider the complaint because PR1 had referred the complaint to our service more than six months after it had issued its final response letter to Mr C in November 2018. One of our investigators agreed and wrote to PR1 in January 2021 to say we couldn’t consider the complaint.

-- 1 of 3 --

In April 2021, a different professional representative (‘PR2’) wrote to Shawbrook on Mr C’s behalf to make a claim under sections 75 and 75A of the CCA. It made several allegations. It said: the sale was long and the Supplier used high-pressure sales tactics; the membership was sold as an investment; the Supplier misrepresented the membership in various ways; a recent change in ownership of the resort means Mr C can no longer rent out his allocated week; the way that annual management fees are collected and the way that the membership programme has been run recently doesn’t reflect the relevant ‘Management Agreement’; and, Mr C receives no customer service from the Supplier at the resort. PR2 also seems to allege that the Allocated Property will not be sold at the end of the membership term. It appears PR2 referred this complaint to our service in March 2022. Regrettably, we didn’t set up a new complaint. I don’t know why. In January 2024, PR2 wrote to Shawbrook on Mr C’s behalf to make a claim under section 140A of the CCA. Among other things, it reiterated that the timeshare membership was sold as an investment, and referred to the recent High Court judgment in R (on the application of Shawbrook Bank Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2023] EWHC 1069 (Admin) (‘Shawbrook v Financial Ombudsman Service’), which confirmed that a creditor-debtor relationship could be unfair under section 140A of the CCA if the timeshare membership was sold as an investment. Shawbrook issued its final response letter on 20 September 2024. It said it had previously considered and rejected Mr C’s complaint that the membership was sold as an investment, noted that our service has already said we don’t have jurisdiction to consider this, and said it didn’t consent to us considering it now. It addressed the other complaint points on their merits. These concerned the Supplier’s sales tactics, the availability of accommodation, the management charge and rental scheme, and an allegation that the Supplier has ceased trading and that the membership is therefore no longer usable. It rejected all these complaint points. One of our investigators didn’t think we could consider a complaint that the relationship was unfair under section 140A of the CCA, or that Shawbrook was liable for any misrepresentation by the Supplier under section 75, because Mr C had already complained about both. However, he thought we could consider a complaint that there had been a breach of contract by the Supplier, for which Shawbrook would be liable under section 75 as it’s essentially about a different event and Mr C hasn’t previously complained about it. That said, he didn’t think PR2 had provided sufficient evidence of a breach of contract, and he therefore didn’t it was unfair for Shawbrook to decline the claim. PR2 asked for a final decision from an ombudsman. I issued a provisional decision on 16 February 2026, which explained why I didn’t think I could consider most of Mr C’s complaint and why I didn’t intend to uphold the part that I could consider. Regarding the latter, I said: Parts of the complaint concern (or flow from) what happened at the Time of Sale; other parts concern what’s happened since. … Regarding what’s happened since, neither Mr C nor PR1 made any reference to a breach of contract by the Supplier, so PR2’s allegation that there’s been a breach of contract by the Supplier is a new, separate complaint. And section 75 of the CCA says, if certain conditions are met, that the finance provider is legally answerable for any breach of contract by the supplier.

-- 2 of 3 --

That said, PR2 hasn’t provided any evidence to show that the Supplier was responsible for renting out Mr C’s allocated week, that he had a contractual right to a guaranteed rental income, or that the change in ownership has, in some way, prevented Mr C from renting out his allocated week privately or otherwise availing himself of a contractual right. Similarly, PR2 hasn’t provided any evidence to show that Mr C can’t use his allocated week because the Supplier (or part thereof) is no longer trading. Finally, as the membership term hasn’t ended, any claim for breach of contract on the basis that the Allocated Property may not be sold is speculative and premature. I asked both parties to provide any further comments or evidence for me to consider by 2 March 2026. Shawbrook has confirmed receipt of my provisional decision and says it has nothing to add. PR2 hasn’t responded at all. I’m now finalising my decision on the merits of Mr C’s claim under section 75 of the CCA for breach of contract. I’ve already finalised my decision on the rest of Mr C’s complaint in a separate 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. As neither party has provided any further information or evidence, I confirm my provisional findings. My reasons remain the same. My final decision For the reasons given, I don’t think it was unfair for Shawbrook Bank Limited to decline Mr C’s claim under section 75 of the CCA for any alleged breach of contract by the Supplier. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Christopher Reeves Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --