DRN-6299967

The complaint Mr and Mrs B’s complaint is, in essence, that First Holiday Finance Ltd (the ‘Lender’) acted unfairly and unreasonably by (1) being party to an unfair credit relationship with them under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) (the ‘CCA’) and (2) deciding against paying claims under Section 75 of the CCA. What happened Mr and Mrs B were members of a timeshare provider (the ‘Supplier’) – having purchased a number of products from it over time including the purchase of their first Fractional Club membership in December 2011. However, this purchase falls outside the scope of this complaint as it was funded by other means. The product at the centre of this complaint is their membership of a timeshare that I’ll call the ‘Signature Collection’ – which they bought on 23 December 2014 (the ‘Time of Sale’). From my understanding, Mr and Mrs B received a trade in value as a result of trading in their previous membership towards the cost of their Signature Collection membership. They entered into an agreement with the Supplier to buy 2,330 fractional points at a cost of £9,953 (the ‘Purchase Agreement’). After paying a £500 deposit, Mr and Mrs B paid for their Signature Collection membership by taking finance of £9,453 from the Lender (the ‘Credit Agreement’). Like their Fractional Club membership, Signature Collection membership was asset backed – which meant it gave Mr and Mrs B 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 and Mrs B – using a professional representative (the ‘PR’) – wrote to the Lender on 7 February 2018 (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. Upon receipt of Mr and Mrs B’s Letter of Complaint, the Lender forwarded their concerns to the Supplier who issued their response on 12 July 2018, rejecting it on every ground. 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. Mr and Mrs B disagreed with the Investigator’s assessment and asked for an Ombudsman’s decision – which is why it was passed to me. I considered the matter and issued a provisional decision (the ‘PD’) dated 18 March 2026. In that decision, I said: “The legal and regulatory context

-- 1 of 12 --

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: 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 My provisional findings 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 do not currently think this complaint should be upheld. 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. 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.

-- 2 of 12 --

It was said in the Letter of Complaint that Signature Collection membership had been misrepresented by the Supplier at the Time of Sale because Mr and Mrs B were: (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 Signature Collection membership was an “investment” when that was not true. However, 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. After all, a share in an allocated property was, by its very nature, an investment. And while, as I understand it, the sale of the Allocated Property could be postponed in certain circumstances according to the Signature Collection Rules, Mr and Mrs B say little to nothing to persuade me that they were given a guarantee by the Supplier that the Allocated Property would be sold on a specific date when such a promise would have been impossible to stand by given the inevitable uncertainty of selling property some way into the future. And as there’s nothing else on file to support the PR’s allegation, I’m not persuaded that there was a representation by the Supplier on the issue in question that constituted a false statement of fact. So, while I recognise that Mr and Mrs B 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 particular Section 75 claim. Section 75 of the CCA: the Supplier’s Breach of Contract I have already summarised how Section 75 of the CCA works and why it gives consumers a right of recourse against a lender. So, it is not necessary to repeat that here other than to say that, if I find that the Supplier is liable for having breached the Purchase Agreement, the Lender is also liable. Mr and Mrs B say that they could not holiday where and when they wanted to – which, on my reading of the complaint, suggests that the Supplier was not living up to its end of the bargain, potentially breaching the Purchase Agreement. Yet, like any holiday accommodation, availability was not unlimited – given the higher demand at peak times, like school holidays for instance. Some of the sales paperwork likely to have been signed by Mr and Mrs B states that the availability of holidays was/is subject to demand. It also looks like they made use of their fractional points to holiday on a number of occasions. I accept that they may not have been able to take certain holidays. But I have not seen enough to persuade me that the Supplier had breached the terms of the Purchase Agreement. Section 140A of the CCA: did the Lender participate in an unfair credit relationship? I’ve already explained why I’m not persuaded that Signature Collection 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.

-- 3 of 12 --

Having considered the entirety of the credit relationship between Mr and Mrs B 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 and Mrs B and the Lender. The Supplier’s sales & marketing practices at the Time of Sale Mr and Mrs B’s complaint about the Lender being party to an unfair credit relationship was and is made for several reasons. The PR says, for instance that: 1. the right checks weren’t carried out before the Lender lent to Mr and Mrs B; and 2. Mr and Mrs B were pressured by the Supplier into purchasing Signature Collection membership at the Time of Sale. However, as things currently stand, neither of these strike me as reasons 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 Mr and Mrs B 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 them for this reason. But from the information provided, I am not satisfied that the lending was unaffordable for Mr and Mrs B. I acknowledge that Mr and Mrs B may have felt weary after a sales process that went on for a long time. But they say little about what was said and/or done by the Supplier during their sales presentation that made them feel as if they had no choice but to purchase Signature Collection membership when they simply did not want to. They were also given a 14-day cooling off period and they have not provided a credible explanation for why they did not cancel their membership during that time. And with all of that being the case, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr and Mrs B made the decision to purchase Signature Collection membership because their ability to exercise that choice was significantly impaired by pressure from the Supplier. Overall, therefore, I don’t think that Mr and Mrs B’s credit relationship with the Lender was rendered unfair to them under Section 140A for any of the reasons above. But there is another reason, perhaps the main reason, why the PR now says the credit relationship

-- 4 of 12 --

with the Lender was unfair to them. And that’s the suggestion that Signature Collection membership was marketed and sold to them 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 A share in the Allocated Property clearly constituted an investment as it offered Mr and Mrs B 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 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 . In other words, the Timeshare Regulations did not ban products such as the Signature Collection. They just regulated how such products were marketed and sold. To conclude, therefore, that Signature Collection membership was marketed or sold to Mr and Mrs B 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 them as an investment, i.e. told them or led them to believe that Signature Collection membership offered them the prospect of a financial gain (i.e., a profit) given the facts and circumstances of this complaint. And there is competing evidence in this complaint as to whether 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, it is clear that the Supplier made efforts to avoid specifically describing membership of the Signature Collection as an ‘investment’ or quantifying to prospective purchasers, such as Mr and Mrs B, 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. But on the other hand, I acknowledge that the Supplier’s sales process left open the possibility that the sales representative may have positioned Signature Collection membership as an investment. So, I accept that it’s equally possible that Signature Collection membership was marketed and sold to Mr and Mrs B 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. Would the credit relationship between the Lender and Mr and Mrs B have been rendered unfair to them had there been a breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations? 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 (if there was one) had on the fairness of the credit relationship between Mr and Mrs B 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

-- 5 of 12 --

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 and Mrs B and the Lender that was unfair to them and warranted relief as a result, whether the Supplier’s breach of Regulation 14(3) led them to enter into the Purchase Agreement and the Credit Agreement is an important consideration. To help me decide this point, I’ve carefully considered what Mr and Mrs B have said in the course of their complaint about how the membership was sold to them and their motivation for taking it out. And, on my reading of the evidence before me, the prospect of a financial gain from Signature Collection membership was not an important and motivating factor when Mr and Mrs B decided to go ahead with their purchase. And I’ll explain why. In the Letter of Complaint to the Lender, Mr and Mrs B say they were sold an investment, but they don’t provide any further detail about why they felt that, or what was said by the sales representatives about the expected return they were expecting to receive as a result of this purchase. Mr and Mrs B emailed our service on 20 October 2023 providing their recollections of their history with the Supplier, which is dated 19 October 2023. Mr and Mrs B initially purchased a trial membership with the Supplier in April 2004 followed by a full membership in October 2004. Mr and Mrs B then purchased further holiday points in August 2006 and May 2007. These points provided Mr and Mrs B with the ability to take holidays so I think it’s reasonable to assume Mr and Mrs B had some interest in the holiday options the Supplier had to offer. In December 2011, Mr and Mrs B purchased Fractional Club membership so along with holiday rights, it also provided them with a share in the net sale proceeds of a property named on their Purchase Agreement. In the statement, Mr and Mrs B say they were persuaded to take a better deal, and they said they were told it would provide them with £33,000. As mentioned earlier, this purchase is not the subject of this complaint but provides me with some background about Mr and Mrs B’s purchasing history. Mr and Mrs B provide very little detail about the purchase in question, saying: “On the 23/12/2014, another upgrade was done with [the Lender] of £9953 and to pay back £19,399.59 in 144 months of £134.72. That payment started on the 25/02/15”. Mr and Mrs B then summarise their concerns and within their conclusion, they say: “Our decisions to purchase timeshare products from [the Supplier] were based mainly on verbal statements made by the representatives about the benefits such investments would bring.” But Mr and Mrs B do not specifically set out what they were told when they purchased their membership in December 2014. The reference to the word ‘investments’ above, in my opinion, is how they are describing their purchases overall with the Supplier – not that they were expecting to receive a financial gain as a result of purchasing their Signature Collection membership. But as I have said, I accept that it is possible that the Supplier positioned Fractional Club

-- 6 of 12 --

membership as an investment but what I need to establish is whether such positioning was material to Ms M’s decision to purchase the membership. Shortly after receiving this statement, the PR share a copy of Mr and Mrs B’s statement that they obtained and this was dated February 2018. Within this, Mr and Mrs B say: “The representatives highly recommended that we purchase more fractional points to give us a larger investment when the property was to be sold”. Accepting what Mr and Mrs B say at face value here, the prospect of a return was a factor in their decision to purchase the membership. However, this isn’t mentioned in the initial Letter of Complaint, nor is this statement reflected in Mr and Mrs B statement that they’ve written themselves. I think if the investment element of this membership was a material factor in their decision to purchase it, I think their claim surrounding it would have been consistent throughout the journey of this complaint. Furthermore, in 2019 Mr and Mrs B traded in their Signature Collection membership towards the purchase of ‘Holiday Owners Club’. At this point, Mr and Mrs B no longer owned any shares in the net sale proceeds of the Allocated property and had decided to purchase a product with the Supplier which only provided holiday rights. That to me doesn’t reflect the actions of someone who had purchased their membership for the investment element. Based on all of the information I have, I’m simply not persuaded that it would be fair to conclude that Mr and Mrs B were materially motivated by the prospect of a profit or financial gain when deciding to purchase Signature Collection membership. That doesn’t mean they weren’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 and Mrs B themselves don’t persuade me that their purchase was motivated by their 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 they ultimately made. On balance, therefore, even if the Supplier had marketed or sold the Signature Collection membership as an investment in breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations, I am not persuaded that Mr and Mrs B’s decision to purchase Signature Collection 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 they would have pressed ahead with their 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 and Mrs B and the Lender was unfair to them even if the Supplier had breached Regulation 14(3). The provision of information by the Supplier at the Time of Sale The PR says that Mr and Mrs B were not given sufficient information at the Time of Sale by the Supplier in order to make an informed choice. It isn’t clear what information the PR thinks the Supplier failed to provide at the Time of Sale. But 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.

-- 7 of 12 --

So, while I acknowledge that it is also possible that the Supplier did not give Mr and Mrs B sufficient information, in good time, in order to satisfy the requirements of Regulation 12 of the Timeshare Regulations (which was concerned with the provision of ‘key information’), even if that was the case, neither Mr and Mrs B nor the PR have persuaded me that they were deprived of information that would have led them to make a different purchasing decision at the Time of Sale. And with that being the case, even if there were information failings (which I make no formal finding on), I can’t see why they led to an unfair credit relationship as a result. The PR says 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. As both sides already know, the Supreme Court handed down an important judgment on 1 August 2025 in a series of cases concerned with the issue of commission: Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd [2025] UKSC 33 (‘Hopcraft, Johnson and Wrench’). The Supreme Court ruled that, in each of the three cases, the commission payments made to car dealers by lenders were legal, as claims for the tort of bribery, or the dishonest assistance of a breach of fiduciary duty, had to be predicated on the car dealer owing a fiduciary duty to the consumer, which the car dealers did not owe. A “disinterested duty”, as described in Wood v Commercial First Business Ltd & ors and Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Pengelly [2021] EWCA Civ 471, is not enough. However, the Supreme Cort held that the credit relationship between the lender and Mr Johnson was unfair under Section 140A of the CCA because of the commission paid by the lender to the car dealer. The main reasons for coming to that conclusion included, amongst other things, the following factors: 1. The size of the commission (as a percentage of the total charge for credit). In Mr Johnson’s case it was 55%. This was “so high” and “a powerful indication that the relationship…was unfair” (see paragraph 327); 2. The failure to disclose the commission; and 3. The concealment of the commercial tie between the car dealer and the lender. The Supreme Court also confirmed that the following factors, in what was a non- exhaustive list, will normally be relevant when assessing whether a credit relationship was/is unfair under Section 140A of the CCA: 1. The size of the commission as a proportion of the charge for credit; 2. The way in which commission is calculated (a discretionary commission arrangement, for example, may lead to higher interest rates); 3. The characteristics of the consumer; 4. The extent of any disclosure and the manner of that disclosure (which, insofar as Section 56 of the CCA is engaged, includes any disclosure by a supplier when acting as a broker); and 5. Compliance with the regulatory rules. From my reading of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hopcraft, Johnson and Wrench, it sets out principles which apply to credit brokers other than car dealer–credit brokers. So, when considering allegations of undisclosed payments of commission like the one in this complaint, Hopcraft, Johnson and Wrench is relevant law that I’m required to consider

-- 8 of 12 --

under Rule 3.6.4 of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Dispute Resolution Rules (‘DISP’). But I don’t think Hopcraft, Johnson and Wrench assists Mr and Mrs B in arguing that their credit relationship with the Lender was unfair to them for reasons relating to commission given the facts and circumstances of this complaint. Overall, therefore, I’m not currently persuaded that the 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 and Mrs B. Based on what I’ve seen so far, the Supplier’s role as a credit broker wasn’t a separate service and distinct from its role as the seller of timeshares. It was simply a means to an end in the Supplier’s overall pursuit of a successful timeshare sale. I can’t see that the Supplier gave an undertaking – either expressly or impliedly – to put to one side its commercial interests in pursuit of that goal when arranging the Credit Agreement. And as it wasn’t acting as an agent of Mr and Mrs B but as the supplier of contractual rights they obtained under the Purchase Agreement, the transaction doesn’t strike me as one with features that suggest the Supplier had an obligation of ‘loyalty’ to them when arranging the Credit Agreement and thus a fiduciary duty. I recognise that the Lender was and is part of the same group of companies as the Supplier. And I acknowledge that tie may not have been adequately disclosed at the Time of Sale. But I can’t currently see why that renders the credit relationship between Mr and Mrs B and the Lender unfair to them – such that I should uphold the complaint. I say that because the Lender has explained that the Supplier would share finance proposals among its approved external finance partners; the Supplier couldn’t write all its finance business “in-house”; and the Lender largely provided loans to customers whose circumstances fell outside of its external finance partners’ lending terms. So, I’m not persuaded that Mr and Mrs B were led into a credit agreement with the Lender because it was tied in some way to the Supplier. What’s more, in stark contrast to the facts of Mr Johnson’s case, 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 currently persuaded that the 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 and Mrs B. Section 140A: Conclusion Given all of the factors I’ve looked at in this part of my decision, and having taken all of them into account, I’m not persuaded that the credit relationship between Mr and Mrs B and the Lender under the Credit Agreement and related Purchase Agreement was unfair to them. And as things currently stand, I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable that I uphold this complaint on that basis. Overall 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 and Mrs B’s Section 75 claims, and I am not persuaded that the Lender was party to a credit relationship with them under the Credit Agreement and related Purchase Agreement that was unfair to them 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 them.”

-- 9 of 12 --

The Lender did not respond to the PD. The PR responded – they did not accept the PD and provided some further comments and evidence they wish to be considered. Having received the relevant responses from both parties, I’m now finalising my 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 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 relate to the issue of whether the credit relationship between Mr and Mrs B and the Lender was unfair. In particular, the PR has provided further comments in relation to whether the membership was sold to Mr and Mrs B as an investment at the Time of Sale. 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? The Supplier’s alleged breach of Regulation 14(3) of the Timeshare Regulations Included in the PR’s response to my PD was an oral hearing request along with the offer to produce sworn affidavits. Oral hearings are something that I can direct happen under DISP 3.5.5. However, the Financial Ombudsman Service is set up to decide complaints informally and it is for me as the decision maker to determine what evidence I think I need to determine what is a fair and reasonable outcome to a complaint. Having considered everything, I do not think I need to hold an oral hearing to fairly determine this complaint. This is because both parties have already provided lengthy submissions. In this case, I have statements from Mr and Mrs B, other evidence, including the documents from the sale, and full submissions from the PR and Lender to decide what I think was most likely to have happened. I’m satisfied I’m able to weigh up what Mr and Mrs B has said against the available evidence and arguments to determine what I think happened on the balance of probabilities without the need for an oral hearing. And as it’s in everyone’s interest to resolve

-- 10 of 12 --

this complaint as soon as possible, to grant a hearing at such a late stage would inevitably prolong the resolution of this case. I understand that the PR also offers to have Mr and Mrs B provide a sworn affidavit. But I must remind them that we don’t have strict evidential requirements. We aren’t expected to decide complaints only after receiving sworn evidence. And our jurisdiction is investigative rather than adversarial. I remain of the view that the information we have on file is enough to cover all the issues I need to consider to reach a fair decision. And as I’ve considered everything on file, including the specific points raised by the PR as part of its request, I’m of the view that a hearing request and sworn affidavits aren’t required. The PR remains of the opinion that Mr and Mrs B have consistently described the product as having been sold as an investment and that description appears across multiple documents. I’m not necessarily disputing this. As I explained in my PD, although I found there was a possibility that the Supplier breached Regulation 14(3) at the Time of Sale, I wasn’t persuaded that the evidence suggested that Mr and Mrs B purchased Fractional Club membership in whole or in part down to any breach of Regulation 14(3). The PR also said, my conclusion that any breach of Regulation 14(3) was not material to Mr and Mrs B’s decision does not properly engage with the fact that: • “the complainants were repeatedly encouraged to increase their holdings to enhance their “investment”; • they were persuaded by promises of financial return, including specific figures; • their purchasing decisions were explicitly linked to the benefits those “investments” would bring.” I’ve carefully considered all of the evidence I’ve been provided with. I think it’s important to note, that when Mr and Mrs B upgraded in December 2014, they were already Fractional Club owners. So, any reference to the fact that their previous membership was in perpetuity (as per the Letter of Complaint) isn’t accurate. In addition to this, in Mr and Mrs B’s statement dated February 2018, they say “The representatives highly recommended that we purchase more fractional points to give us a larger investment when the property was to be sold”. However, Mr and Mrs B didn’t increase the number of fractional points they owned as a result of their purchase in December 2014. Mr and Mrs B previously held 2,580 fractional points and these were traded in when they purchased their 2,330 Signature Collection points in December 2014. The evidence I’ve been given does not convince me that Mr and Mrs B were materially motivated by the prospect of a financial gain in December 2014. The PR reiterated that the judgment handed down in Shawbrook & BPF v FOS asserted that the relevant question in this circumstance is whether the breach of Regulation 14(3) was a material factor in the decision to purchase. It feels that the testimony Mr and Mrs B have provided demonstrates that this was the case. But, as I’ve said above and explained in my provisional decision, I’m not persuaded from the testimony that Mr and Mrs B have adequately demonstrated that the promise of profit was a motivating factor to their decision to move ahead with the purchase. 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 and Mrs B’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 and Mrs B and the

-- 11 of 12 --

Lender was unfair to them 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 and Mrs B’s Section 75 claims, and I am not persuaded that the Lender was party to a credit relationship with them under the Credit Agreement that was unfair to them 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 them. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr and Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 15 May 2026. Sameena Ali Ombudsman

-- 12 of 12 --