Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against N.I.I.B. Group Limited, trading as Northridge Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained about Northridge's termination of his hire purchase agreement and attempted repossession of the financed car following arrears in 2024-2025. He disputed the validity of the termination process, claimed non-receipt of statutory notices, and argued that Northridge failed to treat him fairly given his mental health difficulties and financial circumstances. The ombudsman initially found insufficient evidence of compliance with notice requirements but changed this view after Northridge provided documentary evidence of the notices and correspondence issued. The ombudsman concluded that Northridge had complied with statutory requirements and acted fairly overall, rejecting arguments about unaffordable repayment arrangements and inadequate forbearance, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman initially found insufficient evidence of compliance with statutory notice requirements but changed this view after Northridge provided copies of default notices and correspondence. The documents were consistently addressed to Mr B's known address and aligned with internal records and chronology of events. Although Mr B disputed receiving the correspondence, the ombudsman was satisfied on balance that Northridge had issued the relevant notices and complied with applicable requirements. Regarding vulnerability, while acknowledging Mr B's genuine mental health difficulties, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence that Northridge acted unfairly in its response or that any shortcomings caused the wider financial losses Mr B described. The ombudsman rejected arguments about unaffordable repayment arrangements and lack of forbearance options.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website