Moneybarn No.1 Limited · DRN-6248486

The complaint Moneybarn No.1 Limited, trading as Moneybarn (‘Moneybarn’) provided Mr S with a conditional sale agreement for a used car. He says the finance was provided irresponsibly and he couldn’t afford to repay it. What happened In February 2023, Mr S acquired a used car financed by a conditional sale agreement from Moneybarn. The cash price of the car was £9,990 with Mr S being required to make 60 monthly repayments of £304.23. The total repayable under the agreement was £17,949.57. 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. We’ve set out our general approach to complaints about unaffordable or irresponsible lending on our website and I’ve taken this into account in deciding Mr S’s case. Having considered everything, I’m not upholding the complaint. I’ll explain my reasoning below: I’ve decided the credit was provided fairly because: • I have some concerns about the checks Moneybarn did before agreeing to lend to Mr S. I say that mainly because we haven’t seen the full details of its affordability calculation which relied on statistical information. That’s not to suggest that checks weren’t carried out, including looking into Mr S’s credit history. Moneybarn was aware of a county court judgment that was being repaid. But I can’t see for certain what Moneybarn relied on at the time. Given the lack of specific details of the calculations reached in this case, I’m unable to say from what I’ve seen that the checks were proportionate. • If Moneybarn had done proportionate checks, I don’t think it’s likely these would have shown it was unfair to provide the agreement though. That’s because, based on the information Mr S provided about his financial circumstances at the time, including the bank statements he’s sent us, I don’t think there’s enough to show or suggest that Mr S was likely to have been unable to sustainably repay what he was being lent. Allowing for his monthly income and committed household spending, including mortgage costs, Mr S looked to have enough disposable income available. Even if his level of spending may vary from month to month, I think he was likely to be able to meet the monthly cost of the new agreement. • Mr S has pointed out that he was making use of his overdraft facility and had also taken out borrowing elsewhere. He was also repaying a county court judgment. I’ve looked at all of this and kept in mind that taking on this agreement was a significant

-- 1 of 2 --

financial commitment for him. I’m not suggesting that he wasn’t having to be careful with his finances, but what I can’t say is that with the new agreement there was a likelihood that they could deteriorate. • I therefore think better checks by Moneybarn were still likely to have shown the new agreement to be affordable and something Mr S would be able to repay on a sustainable basis. • I don’t think Moneybarn acted unfairly in any other way. To summarise, I don’t think Moneybarn acted unfairly when it provided the finance to Mr S. I’ve also considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, for the reasons I’ve already given, I don’t think Moneybarn lent irresponsibly to Mr S or otherwise treated him unfairly. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that s.140A or anything else would, given the facts of this complaint, lead to a different outcome here. I know this won’t be the outcome Mr S hoped for. But for the reasons above, I’m not asking Moneybarn to do anything more to put things right. My final decision My final decision is that I’m not upholding this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Michael Goldberg Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --