Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods and unfair handling of voluntary termination and loss of value charges complaint against Moneybarn No1 Limited t/a Moneybarn

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L purchased a used car via conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn in October 2023. The car broke down in May 2024 and was damaged by a recovery service. Mr L agreed to voluntary termination but requested that Moneybarn provide a detailed invoice for repair costs to support a third-party claim against the recovery service. Moneybarn instead sold the car at auction without repairs and applied a loss of value charge of £2,311.13. Mr L complained that the car was of unsatisfactory quality and that Moneybarn dealt with the termination unfairly. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that Mr L failed to prove the car was unsatisfactory at supply (lacking independent inspection evidence) and that Moneybarn followed a fair process with clear communications regarding the voluntary termination and charges applied in accordance with the contract.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 framework regarding satisfactory quality. Since the fault was discovered after six months, the burden was on Mr L to prove the car was unsatisfactory at supply. Without an independent garage inspection (only a verbal quote without physical examination), this burden could not be met. Regarding termination, Moneybarn followed a fair process with clear communications, and Mr L agreed to voluntary termination without conditioning it on receiving an invoice. The loss of value charge was applied in accordance with the contract and Consumer Credit Act 1974. The ombudsman could not hold Moneybarn liable for the recovery service's actions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website