Partially upheld: handling of agreement following theft; termination of agreement; forbearance and financial difficulties complaint against JBR Capital Limited trading as JBR Capital

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S complained about JBR's handling of her hire purchase agreement after her car was stolen in August 2024 and subsequently recovered in October 2024. Following the car's return in January 2025, Miss S fell into arrears due to financial uncertainty caused by an insurance dispute over theft-related damage. When Miss S requested forbearance and proposed £1,000 monthly payments, JBR rejected the proposal based on her financial information showing a monthly deficit. JBR issued a default notice and terminated the agreement in July 2025 while Miss S's complaint was under review. The ombudsman found that while JBR made communication errors regarding car recovery requirements and caused avoidable distress by terminating during the complaint process, the termination itself was not unreasonable given the substantial arrears and lack of affordable payment arrangement. The ombudsman rejected Miss S's arguments that she should not be liable for payments during the theft period or that the termination should be reversed, and awarded £250 compensation for the communication failures and procedural timing issues.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while JBR's termination of the agreement was not unreasonable given the substantial arrears and lack of affordable payment arrangement, JBR made communication errors and caused avoidable distress. JBR provided contradictory information about MOT and road tax requirements following the car's recovery, and terminated the agreement while Miss S's complaint was under review, causing confusion. However, the ombudsman rejected Miss S's arguments that: (1) she should not be liable for payments while the car was stolen, as JBR fulfilled its obligations and the theft was not JBR's fault; (2) JBR breached DISP rules by not suspending enforcement action during complaint investigation, as this provision does not apply to her circumstances; and (3) the termination should be reversed, as by that point arrears had accrued substantially and no reasonably affordable payment plan was proposed. The ombudsman concluded that delaying termination would not have materially changed Miss S's position, as arrears would have continued to accrue.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website