Shawbrook Bank Limited · DRN-6249148

The complaint Mr C’s complaint is, in essence, that Shawbrook Bank Limited (the ‘Lender’) acted unfairly and unreasonably by (1) being party to an unfair credit relationship with him under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) (the ‘CCA’) and (2) not responding to his claim under Section 75 of the CCA. What happened Mr C purchased membership of a timeshare (the ‘Fractional Club’) from a timeshare provider (the ‘Supplier’) on 14 June 2016 (the ‘Time of Sale’). He entered into an agreement with the Supplier to buy 810 fractional points at a cost of £13,462 (the ‘Purchase Agreement’). Fractional Club membership was asset backed – which meant it gave Mr C more than just holiday rights. It also included a share in the net sale proceeds of a property named on the Purchase Agreement (the ‘Allocated Property’) after their membership term ends. Mr C paid for their Fractional Club membership by taking finance of £13,462 from the Lender (the ‘Credit Agreement’). The loan was redeemed on 1 July 2018. Mr C – using a professional representative (the ‘PR’) – wrote to the Lender on 30 June 2022 (the ‘Letter of Complaint’) to raise a number of different concerns. As those concerns haven’t changed since they were first raised, and as both sides are familiar with them, it isn’t necessary to repeat them in detail here beyond the summary above. The Lender dealt with Mr C’s concerns as a complaint but had not issued a final response letter within eight weeks of the complaint being made. The complaint was then referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service. It was assessed by an Investigator who, having considered the information on file, rejected the complaint on its merits. I have reviewed and considered all the arguments and submissions made by PR and the Lender, including those made in response to our Investigator’s view. Having done so, I issued a provisional decision (the ‘PD’) dated 30 September 2025. I agreed with our Investigator, and did not consider that the complaint should be upheld. In that decision, I said: “ I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. And having done that, I agree with the Investigator and do not think this complaint should be upheld. I have, however, expanded upon the Investigator’s reasoning and so think it’s appropriate to give both parties the opportunity to comment before I issue my final decision. However, before I explain why, I want to make it clear that my role as an Ombudsman is not to address every single point that has been made to date. Instead, it is to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. So, if I have not commented on, or referred to, something that either party has said, that does not mean I have not considered it.

-- 1 of 11 --

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”) in the event that 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 Fractional Club membership had been misrepresented by the Supplier at the Time of Sale because Mr C was: 1. Told that they had purchased an investment that would “considerably appreciate in value”. 2. Promised a considerable return on their investment because they were told that they would own a share in a property that would considerably increase in value. 3. Told that they could sell their Fractional Club membership to the Supplier or easily to third parties at a profit. 4. Made to believe that they would have access to “the holiday apartment” at any time all year round. However, neither points 1 nor 2 strike me as misrepresentations even if such representations 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. And even if the Supplier’s sales representatives went further and suggested that the share in question would increase in value, perhaps considerably so, that sounds like nothing more than a honestly held opinion as there isn’t any accompanying evidence to persuade me that the relevant sales representative(s) said something that, while an opinion, amounted to a statement of fact that they did not hold or could not have reasonably held. As for points 3 and 4, while it’s possible that Fractional Club membership was misrepresented at the Time of Sale for one or both of those reasons, I don’t think it’s probable. They’re given little to none of the colour or context necessary to demonstrating that the Supplier made false statements of existing fact and/or opinion. And as there isn’t any other evidence on file to support the suggestion that Fractional Club membership was misrepresented for these reasons, I don’t think it was. So, while I recognise that Mr C - and the PR - have concerns about the way in which Fractional Club 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 particular Section 75 claim. Section 140A of the CCA: did the Lender participate in an unfair credit relationship?

-- 2 of 11 --

I’ve already explained why I’m not persuaded that Fractional Club membership was actionably misrepresented by the Supplier at the Time 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 relationship between Mr C 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. Evidence provided by both parties on what was likely to have been said and/or done at the Time of Sale; 4. The inherent probabilities of the sale given its circumstances; and, when relevant 5. Any existing unfairness from a related credit agreement. I have then considered the impact of these on the fairness of the credit relationship between Mr C and the Lender. The Supplier’s sales & marketing practices at the Time of Sale Mr C’s complaint about the Lender being party to an unfair credit relationship was made for several reasons. The PR says, for instance, that the right checks weren’t carried out before the Lender lent to Mr C. I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that was the case in this complaint given its 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 Mr C was actually unaffordable before also concluding that they lost out as a result and then consider whether the credit relationship with the Lender was unfair to him for this reason. But from the information provided, I am not satisfied that the lending was unaffordable for Mr C. Connected to this is the suggestion by the PR that the Credit Agreement was arranged by an unauthorised credit broker, the upshot of which is to suggest that the Lender wasn’t permitted to enforce the Credit Agreement. However, it looks to me like Mr C knew, amongst other things, how much they were borrowing and repaying each month, who they were borrowing from and that they were borrowing money to pay for Fractional Club membership. And as the lending doesn’t look like it was unaffordable for him, even if the Credit Agreement was arranged by a broker that didn’t have the necessary permission to do so (which I make no formal finding on), I can’t see why that led to a financial loss for Mr C – such that I can say that the credit relationship in question was unfair on him 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 him, even if the loan wasn’t arranged properly. The PR also says that there was one or more unfair contract terms in the Purchase Agreement. But as I can’t see that any such terms were operated unfairly against Mr C in practice, nor that any such terms led him to behave in a certain way to his detriment, I’m not persuaded that any of the terms governing Fractional Club membership are likely to have led to an unfairness that warrants a remedy.

-- 3 of 11 --

I acknowledge that Mr C may have felt weary after a sales process that went on for a long time. But he says little about what was said and/or done by the Supplier during his sales presentation that made him feel as if he had no choice but to purchase Fractional Club membership when he simply did not want to. He was also given a 14-day cooling off period and he has not provided a credible explanation for why he did not cancel his membership during that time. I’ve also considered that Mr C had made previous purchases from the Supplier and was likely aware of the form that these presentations take. And with all of that being the case, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr C made the decision to purchase Fractional Club membership because his ability to exercise that choice was significantly impaired by pressure from the Supplier. Overall, therefore, I don’t think that Mr C’s credit relationship with the Lender was rendered unfair to him under Section 140A for any of the reasons above. But there is another reason, perhaps the main reason, why the PR says the credit relationship with the Lender was unfair to him. And that’s the suggestion that Fractional Club membership was marketed and sold to him as an investment in breach of 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 Mr C’s Fractional Club membership met the definition of a “timeshare contract” and was a “regulated contract” for the purposes of the Timeshare Regulations. Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations prohibited the Supplier from marketing or selling Fractional Club 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 says that the Supplier did exactly that at the Time of Sale – saying, in summary, that Mr C was told by the Supplier that Fractional Club membership was the type of investment that would only increase in value. 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 Allocated Property clearly constituted an investment as it offered Mr C the prospect of a financial return – whether or not, like all investments, that was more than what they first put into it. But it is important to note at this stage that the fact that Fractional Club 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. In other words, the Timeshare Regulations did not ban products such as the Fractional Club. They just regulated how such products were marketed and sold. To conclude, therefore, that Fractional Club membership was marketed or sold to Mr C 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 him as an investment, i.e. told him or led him to believe that Fractional Club membership offered him the prospect of a financial gain (i.e., a profit) given the facts and circumstances of this complaint.

-- 4 of 11 --

There is competing evidence in this complaint as to whether Fractional Club 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, it is clear that the Supplier made efforts to avoid specifically describing membership of the Fractional Club as an ‘investment’ or quantifying to prospective purchasers, such as Mr C the financial value of their share in the net sales proceeds of the Allocated Property along with the investment considerations, risks and rewards attached to them. On the other hand, I acknowledge that the Supplier’s sales process left open the possibility that the sales representative may have positioned Fractional Club membership as an investment. So, I accept that it’s equally possible that Fractional Club membership was marketed and sold to Mr C as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3). However, whether or not 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 particular issue for the purposes of this decision. Was the credit relationship between the Lender and the Consumer 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 relationship between Mr C and the Lender under the Credit Agreement and related Purchase Agreement 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 relationship between Mr C and the Lender that was unfair to him and warranted relief as a result, whether the Supplier’s breach of Regulation 14(3) led him to enter into the Purchase Agreement and the Credit Agreement is an important consideration. But on my reading of the evidence before me, the prospect of a financial gain from Fractional Club membership was not an important and motivating factor when he decided to go ahead with his purchase. Mr C provided two emails to PR, which were then forwarded to us. The first, dated 21 February 2024, read (in full): “Good morning I was given a free stay as long as I attend a seminar. My wife and I went to the seminar it took about 4 hours and we were under pressure to sign. We signed because we were told that while we enjoy our holidays for 18 years and at the end it will be sold for a profit so it was a win win situation” A month later, on 19 March 2024, Mr C provided a longer email. The relevant part of which read: “We were told that what we were buying is 18 years of holiday (fractions) which will be sold for a profit plus we get an upgrade every year well we only got this upgrade once. “

-- 5 of 11 --

Mr C purchased the fractional membership on 14 June 2016, but did not complain until June 2022, some six years after the purchase. But he didn’t provide any of his own memories of the sale until February 2024, so approaching eight years after the sale, but also after our Investigator had issued their view. I know from my own experiences that memories fade and change over time and that being a part of a complaints process can also affect one’s memories. So I have taken that into account when thinking about the weight I ought to put on what Mr C has said. I also can’t see from the evidence provided that Mr C had explained in any detail what it was about the sales process that made him think he was buying the membership due to the investment element. In my mind, the majority of what Mr C has said goes to the holidays he could have taken and the experiences he had on those holidays. He has mentioned his unhappiness with a particular holiday experience after Covid, so presumably after he had taken a number of holidays without particular issue. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t interested in a share in the Allocated Property. After all, that wouldn’t be surprising given the nature of the product at the centre of this complaint. But as Mr C himself hasn’t persuaded me that his purchase was motivated by his share in the Allocated Property and the possibility of a profit, I don’t think a breach of Regulation 14(3) by the Supplier was likely to have been material to the decision Mr C ultimately made. On balance, therefore, even if the Supplier had marketed or sold the Fractional Club membership as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations, I am not persuaded that Mr C’s decision to purchase Fractional Club membership at the Time of Sale was motivated by the prospect of a financial gain (i.e., a profit). On the contrary, I think the evidence suggests he would have pressed ahead with his purchase whether or not there had been a breach of Regulation 14(3). And for that reason, I do not think the credit relationship between Mr C and the Lender was unfair to him even if the Supplier had breached Regulation 14(3). The Supplier’s alleged breach of Spanish Law and its implications on the Credit Agreement The PR argues that, because the Purchase Agreement was unlawful under Spanish law in light of certain information failings by the Supplier, I should treat that Agreement and the Credit Agreement as rescinded by Mr C and award him compensation accordingly – in keeping with the judgment of the UK’s Supreme Court in Durkin v DSG Retail [2014] UKSC 21 (‘Durkin’). However, as the Lender hasn’t been party to any court proceedings in Spain, and as I can’t see that the Supplier (i.e., company that entered into the Purchase Agreement) is itself the subject of a Spanish court judgment in Mr C’s favour, it seems to me that there is an argument for saying that the Purchase Agreement is valid under English law for the purposes of Durkin. I also note that the Purchase Agreement is governed by English law. So, it isn’t at all clear that Spanish law would be held relevant if the validity of the Purchase Agreement were litigated between its parties and the Lender in an English court. For example, in Diamond Resorts Europe and Others (Case C-632/21), the European Court of Justice ruled that, because the claimant lived in England and the timeshare contract governed by English law, it was English law that applied, not Spanish, even though the latter was more favourable to the claimant in ways that resemble the matters seemingly relied upon by the PR.

-- 6 of 11 --

What’s more, as Mr C has gone some way to taking advantage of the Purchase and Credit Agreements, an English court might hesitate to uphold a claim for rescission of either Agreement because there are equitable reasons to do so. Overall, therefore, in the absence of a successful English court ruling on a timeshare case paid for using a point-of-sale loan on similar facts to this complaint, and given the facts and circumstances of this complaint, I’m not persuaded that it would be fair or reasonable to uphold it for this reason. Conclusion In conclusion, given the facts and circumstances of this complaint, I do not think that the Lender acted unfairly or unreasonably when it dealt with Mr C’s Section 75 claim, and I am not persuaded that the Lender was party to a credit relationship with him under the Credit Agreement that was unfair to him for the purposes of Section 140A of the CCA. And having taken everything into account, I see no other reason why it would be fair or reasonable to direct the Lender to compensate him.” The PR responded to the PD, not accepting it, raising further arguments and asking for a final decision. Following my provisional decision, I also communicated how I was not persuaded that Mr C’s credit relationship with the Lender was unfair to him for reasons relating to the commission arrangements between it and the Supplier. Neither party responded nor sought to challenge my conclusions on this point. Having received the relevant responses from both parties, I’m now finalising my decision. The legal and regulatory context In considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the complaint, I am required under DISP 3.6.4R to take into account: relevant (i) law and regulations; (ii) regulators’ rules, guidance and standards; and (iii) codes of practice; and (where appropriate), what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. The legal and regulatory context that I think is relevant to this complaint is, in many ways. no different to that shared in several hundred published ombudsman decisions on very similar complaints – which can be found on the Financial Ombudsman Service’s website. And with that being the case, it is not necessary to set out that context in detail here. But I would add that the following regulatory rules/guidance are also relevant:

-- 7 of 11 --

The Consumer Credit Sourcebook (‘CONC’) – Found in the Financial Conduct Authority’s (the ‘FCA’) Handbook of Rules and Guidance Below are the most relevant provisions and/or guidance as they were at the relevant time: • CONC 3.7.3 [R] • CONC 4.5.3 [R] • CONC 4.5.2 [G] The FCA’s Principles The rules on consumer credit sit alongside the wider obligations of firms, such as the Principles for Businesses (‘PRIN’). Set out below are those that are most relevant to this complaint: • Principle 6 • Principle 7 • Principle 8 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 and having done so, I’ve reached the same decision as that which I outlined in my provisional findings, for broadly the same reasons. Again, 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 PD in the main relate to the issue of whether the credit relationship between Mr C and the Lender was unfair. In particular, the PR has provided further comments in relation to whether the membership was sold to Mr C as an investment at the Time of Sale. They also argued for the first time that the payment of a commission by the Lender to the Supplier led to an unfair credit relationship. The PR has also continued to argue that the Purchase Agreement is unlawful under Spanish law and therefore it should be treated as rescinded. As outlined in my PD, 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 PD. 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 PD. So, I’ll focus here on the PR’s points raised in response. Section 140A of the CCA: did the Lender participate in an unfair credit relationship?

-- 8 of 11 --

The Supplier’s alleged breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare regulations The PR explained in their response to my PD that they hadn’t shared the Investigator’s view on this complaint with Mr C, saying “this was done in order not to influence their recollections”. The PR said this means Mr C’s recollections have not been influenced by either the Investigator’s view or the judgment in Shawbrook & BPF v FOS. When assessing the witness statement, I also have to consider that neither Mr C or their PR provided any evidence about what took place at the sales presentation prior to this witness statement, and it was only after the investigator issued their view, and after 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) (‘Shawbrook & BPF v FOS’) was handed down, that Mr C recalled that the Supplier led him to believe that Fractional Club membership offered him the prospect of a financial gain. As I mentioned above, I consider that the more time that passes between a complaint and the event complained about, the more risk there is of recollections being vague, inaccurate and/or influenced by discussion with others. Indeed, as there isn’t any other evidence on file to corroborate Mr C’s more recent evidence about his motivations at Time of Sale, there seems to me to be a very real risk that his recollections were coloured by the judgment in Shawbrook & BPF v FOS. And with that being the case, I’m not persuaded that I can give those written recollections the weight necessary to finding that the credit relationship in question was unfair for reasons relating to a breach of the relevant prohibition. Part of my assessment of the testimony was to consider when it was written, and whether it may have been affected by external factors such as the widespread publication of the outcome of Shawbrook and BPF v FOS. I have thought about what the PR has said, but on balance, I don’t find it a credible explanation of the contents of Mr C’s evidence. Here, the PR responded to our Investigator’s view to say that Mr C alleged that Fractional Club membership had been sold to him as an investment and it provided evidence from Mr C to that effect. I fail to understand how Mr C disagreed with the view and PD on the basis that the timeshare was sold as an investment if they didn’t know our Investigator’s conclusions. It follows, I think it more likely than not, that Mr C did know about our Investigator’s view before his evidence was provided. So, I maintain that there is a risk that Mr C’s testimony was coloured by the Investigator’s view and/or the outcome in Shawbrook & BPF v FOS. So, ultimately, for the above reasons, along with those I already explained in my PD, I remain unpersuaded that any breach of Regulation 14(3) was material to Mr C’s purchasing decisions. The PR also said that in the judgment handed down in Shawbrook & BPF v FOS, it was not challenged that the product in question was marketed and sold as an investment. But, as I explained in my provisional decision, the Timeshare Regulations did not ban products such as the Fractional Club. They just regulated how such products were marketed and sold. And the judgment referred to did not make a blanket finding that all such products were mis-sold in the way the PR appears to be suggesting. Any complaint needs to be considered in the light of its specific circumstances.

-- 9 of 11 --

So, as I said before, even if the Supplier had marketed or sold the membership as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3) (which I still make no finding on here), I’m not persuaded Mr C’s decision to make the purchase was motivated by the prospect of a financial gain. So, I still don’t think the credit relationship between Mr C and the Lender was unfair to him for this reason. I will also address the PR’s point regarding the apparent ambiguity in the proposed sale date of the Allocated Property. The PR suggests that a delayed sale date could lead to an unfairness to Mr C in the future, as any delay could mean a delay in the realisation of his share in the Allocated Property. It does appear that the proposed date for the commencement of the sales process, as set out on the owners’ certificate, is 31 December 2032. This same date is set out under point 1 of the Members Declaration, which has been initialled and signed as being read by Mr C. This date indicates that the membership has a term of 18 years. The ambiguity identified by the PR is that in the Information Statement provided as part of the purchase documentation it says the following: “The Owning Company will retain such Allocated Property until the automatic sale date in 19 years time or such later date as is specified in the Rules or the Fractional Rights Certificate.” (bold my emphasis). It seems clear to me that the commencement date for the start of the sales process is 31 December 2032. This actual date is repeated in the sales documentation as I’ve set out above. So, I can’t see that this is a reason to find the credit relationship unfair and uphold this complaint. The provision of information by the Supplier at the Time of Sale The PR said in response to my provisional decision that a payment of commission from the Lender to the Supplier at the Time of Sale should lead me to uphold this complaint because, simply put, information in relation to that payment went undisclosed at the Time of Sale. However, as I understand it, the Lender didn’t pay the Supplier any commission at the Time of Sale. And with that being the case, even if there were information failings at that time and regulatory failings as a result (which I make no formal finding on), I’m not persuaded that any commission arrangements between the Supplier and the Lender were likely to have led to a sufficiently extreme inequality of knowledge that rendered the credit relationship unfair to Mr C. Other points Here, the PR has asked us to determine the rights and obligations of the Lender based on the outcome of a court case in Spain. In my PD, I said that in the absence of a judgment in an English jurisdiction on this issue, I was not persuaded it was fair and reasonable to conclude the loan agreement was able to be set aside. I remain of this view for the following reasons: • The Lender wasn’t a party to the proceedings the PR has referred to, so its’ rights under the Credit Agreements have not been determined. • I still think that the Purchase Agreements are governed by English law for the reasons already set out in my PD. The PR has pointed to a different decision of the

-- 10 of 11 --

European Court of Justice that points the other way. But in the absence of any authorities under English law, I’m still not persuaded that (1) the Purchase Agreements, properly governed by English law, could be avoided following the Spanish Judgment to which the PR refers and (2) that the Credit Agreements were also something that could be successfully avoided. • And lastly, in any event, the PR has not provided any arguments as to why the relevant agreements could be set aside given Mr C’s use of the membership. So again, I’m still not persuaded that it would be fair or reasonable to uphold the complaint for this reason. Conclusion In conclusion, given the facts and circumstances of this complaint, I do not think that the Lender acted unfairly or unreasonably when it dealt with Mr C’s Section 75 claim, and I am not persuaded that the Lender was party to a credit relationship with him under the Credit Agreement that was unfair to him for the purposes of Section 140A of the CCA. And having taken everything into account, I see no other reason why it would be fair or reasonable to direct the Lender to compensate him. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I do not uphold this complaint .Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Bill Catchpole Ombudsman

-- 11 of 11 --