Evergreen Finance London Limited · DRN-6159062

The complaint Mr A is unhappy with the length of time Evergreen Finance London Limited, trading as MoneyBoat.co.uk (‘MoneyBoat’) have taken to remove a County Court Judgment (CCJ) from his credit file. What happened In April 2025 MoneyBoat agreed to remove a CCJ from Mr A’s credit file as they accepted it was not his debt due to the loan being fraudulently taken out in his name. In October 2025 Mr A complained to MoneyBoat as updating his credit file was taking too long and MoneyBoat responded to say the delays were with the court. However, it came to light that due to an administrative error by MoneyBoat, the process of approaching the court to remove the CCJ had to be started again. Our Investigator reviewed what had happened and saw that while the removal of the CCJ was ultimately in the court’s hands and subject to the timescales of the court, MoneyBoat had contributed to the delays because of the administrative error. The Investigator said MoneyBoat caused around two and a half months delay because of this and to recognise this the Investigator proposed MoneyBoat pay Mr A £150. MoneyBoat accepted this, but Mr A did not. Mr A said the reporting of a CCJ to his credit file was serious and he needed to chase MoneyBoat about its removal. To reflect this Mr A said that the compensation should be increased. 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. Having done so I have reached the same outcome as our Investigator for broadly the same reasons. As our Investigator set out the details of what happened to both parties I’ve not repeated them here as both parties are familiar with them, so I’ve only included a summary above. I think it reasonable to say this matter is about the removal of the CCJ from Mr A’s credit file. As it has been previously noted, the removal of a CCJ is not in MoneyBoat’s power in so far as it is a court debt, it must therefore be set-aside by the court in order for it to be removed from a person’s credit file. MoneyBoat were unaware of the fraudulent application until Mr A brought it to their attention. I’ve reviewed what’s happened since MoneyBoat became aware of what happened to Mr A and their subsequent agreement to remove the CCJ from his credit file. And I agree with our Investigator that a delay of around two and a half months was caused by MoneyBoat due to their first request to the court not including the correct fee.

-- 1 of 2 --

MoneyBoat have accepted their shortcomings here. I have no doubt that dealing with what has happened and being a victim of fraud have been upsetting for Mr A, and that sorting out the problem and correcting his credit file is important to him to draw a line under these events. I’ve considered what Mr A has said, and I realise this will be disappointing for him, but I think it’s fair to say the significant delay in updating his credit file rests with the court, so I cannot fairly hold MoneyBoat responsible for that. I note that MoneyBoat are mindful of their need to keep chasing the court for the removal of the CCJ. Overall I think £150 to recognise the delay that MoneyBoat are responsible for is fair in the circumstances and I’ve not seen anything to persuade me that MoneyBoat should pay Mr A any more than this. Putting things right Evergreen Finance London Limited, trading as MoneyBoat.co.uk should pay Mr A £150. My final decision For the reasons above, my final decision is that Mr A’s complaint is upheld and Evergreen Finance London Limited, trading as MoneyBoat.co.uk should put things right as I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Kristina Mathews Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --