MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED · DRN-6057260

The complaint Mr D complains about a ‘loss of value’ charge MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED (Moneybarn) have asked him to pay. What happened The detailed background to this complaint is well known to both parties. So, I’ll only provide a brief overview of some of the key events here. Mr D entered into a hire purchase agreement with Moneybarn to finance a car. He exercised his right to voluntarily terminate the agreement on the 14 May 2025. Following collection of the vehicle Moneybarn issued a final bill dated the 30 June 2025 which included a charge of £584.60 described as the ‘loss of value’. Mr D queried the charge and requested a contractual basis, a breakdown of how it had been calculated, and evidence of the vehicle’s value before and after sale. He did not receive a substantive response and instead received repeated billing communications and requests to discuss the matter by telephone, which he declined in favour of written correspondence. Moneybarn did not provide a final response within the required timeframe and did not supply evidence to this service despite being given the opportunity to do so. On that basis our investigator didn’t think the loss of value charge had been justified and he suggested that Moneybarn should waive it and pay Mr D £100 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Moneybarn didn’t agree as they said a complaint hadn’t been made. I’ve therefore been asked to make an ombudsman’s decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I agree with the investigator’s view of this complaint and for broadly the same reasons. Where the information I’ve got is incomplete, unclear, or contradictory, as some of it is here, I have to base my decision on the balance of probabilities. I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome.

-- 1 of 3 --

Moneybarn had clear and sufficient notice of Mr D's complaint from multiple sources and at multiple points in time. Mr D first raised the complaint directly with Moneybarn in writing on the 17 July 2025, setting out his concerns about the ‘loss of value charge’ and requesting supporting evidence, which was enough to trigger Moneybarn’s obligation to investigate and issue a final response within eight weeks under the Financial Conduct Authority’s complaint handling rules (DISP). In addition, this service wrote to Moneybarn on the 24 September 2025 providing details of the complaint, including Mr D's contact information and the relevant agreement number, which gave Moneybarn a further clear opportunity to engage with the complaint. We also responded to Moneybarn’s subsequent request for information in October 2025 by supplying a copy of Mr D's original complaint email ensuring that Moneybarn had full visibility of the issues being raised. Despite this, Moneybarn failed to provide a substantive response to Mr D or to this service and did not supply any case file or supporting evidence to justify the charge. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that Moneybarn had adequate notice of the complaint and a fair opportunity to respond, but failed to do so. Where a business seeks to apply a charge following voluntary termination, it must be able to demonstrate that the charge is permitted under the agreement and supported by clear evidence of the vehicle’s condition and any resulting financial loss. In this case while Moneybarn has indicated that a loss of value approach may be applied, it has not provided any inspection report, photographs, valuation evidence, or calculation to show how the charge of £584.60 has been derived. In the absence of such evidence, I'm not satisfied that the charge has been applied fairly or in line with the agreement, and it would not be reasonable to require Mr D to pay it. I also consider that Moneybarn's failure to respond adequately to Mr D’s reasonable requests for clarification, and its continued pursuit of the debt while the matter was in dispute by passing the debt to a third party, has caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. Putting things right To put matters right Moneybarn should waive the £584.60 loss of value charge, remove any adverse credit file reports they may have made in relation to it, and pay Mr D £100 to compensate him for the distress and inconvenience caused. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above I uphold this complaint and tell MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED to: • waive the £584.60 loss of value charge, • remove any adverse credit file reports they may have made in relation to that charge, and • pay Mr D £100 to compensate him for the distress and inconvenience caused.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Phillip McMahon Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --