Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W purchased a used car through a Conditional Sale agreement with Moneybarn in early 2024. Within weeks, he discovered the car had a fraudulent service history - the service book contained stamps from a garage that had never actually serviced the vehicle. He immediately complained and requested to reject the car, but Moneybarn failed to properly investigate or address his misrepresentation complaint. Over the following months, Mr W experienced significant hardship including job loss and mental health issues, which he repeatedly disclosed to Moneybarn, but the firm showed no consideration for his vulnerabilities. The agreement was eventually terminated and the car repossessed after Mr W struggled to make payments. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was misrepresented and Mr W should have been able to reject it early on. As remedy, Moneybarn must treat the agreement as rejected rather than terminated, clear Mr W's credit file of adverse information, and write off the remaining debt.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that the car was misrepresented to Mr W as having a full service history when it had none, and this was a critical factor in his decision to enter the agreement. Mr W should have been entitled to reject the car in March or April 2024 when he first complained. Moneybarn failed to properly investigate or respond to his complaint about the misrepresentation and showed no consideration for his vulnerabilities despite him repeatedly disclosing mental health issues, financial difficulties, and job loss. The Ombudsman determined that the fair usage charge of £2,104 that Moneybarn sought was effectively offset by the deposit, repair costs, and substantial distress and inconvenience Mr W was entitled to, making a clean break the fairest outcome.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website