Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Moneybarn Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss K complained that Moneybarn mis-sold her a conditional sale agreement for a car, claiming she was not made aware that most of her repayments would go towards interest and that she was told by the dealership she could swap the agreement after 12 months. The ombudsman found that Moneybarn provided adequate explanations meeting regulatory requirements and that the dealership's statement about swapping was not a misrepresentation but rather an offer to negotiate alternative finance. Since Miss K did not attempt to pursue the swap option after 12 months, the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the structure of repayments (with interest front-loaded) was reasonably foreseeable in a conditional sale agreement and did not constitute a significant adverse effect requiring specific disclosure under CONC 4.2.5R(2)(c). The dealership's statement about swapping the agreement after 12 months was not a misrepresentation but rather an offer to negotiate alternative finance with another lender, which is often possible. Miss K did not attempt to pursue this option after 12 months, so the dealership cannot be said to have lied. Moneybarn met regulatory requirements by providing adequate explanations and cannot be held responsible for the dealership's post-agreement actions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website