MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED · DRN-6254317

The complaint Mrs P complains about the quality of a car she has financed through an agreement with MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED trading as Moneybarn (‘Moneybarn’). What happened Mrs P acquired a car under a conditional sale agreement in July 2025; the car was around eight years old and had covered about 88,000 miles. Soon after acquiring the car Mrs P experienced problems, she contacted Moneybarn on 28 July 2026 and explained she wanted to reject the vehicle because there were exhaust fumes coming into the vehicle and there was a crack in the roof. Mrs P contacted Moneybarn again on the following day and explained there was another issue with the car but was told her complaint had already been raised so she needed to wait until an investigation was completed. On 31 July 2025 Mrs P called Moneybarn confirming that she didn’t have evidence of the fumes coming inside the vehicle but has sent in other evidence to confirm the issues she is experiencing. Moneybarn continued its investigation, in September 2025 Mrs P advised the crank shaft had now gone and the timing chain had snapped and she had been quoted around £10,000 for repairs. An independent report was commissioned, and it concluded that the faults wouldn’t have been present or developing at the point of sale. Based on its findings Moneybarn issued its final response letter on 28 October 2025. In short it didn’t uphold the complaint; its view heavily relied on the findings of the independent inspection and so it didn’t think the car was of unsatisfactory quality. It did however offer to reimburse Mrs P £26.83 she paid for a vehicle health check in August 2025. A further £70.80 Mrs P paid for a diagnostic in September 2025 and £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused in resolving the complaint. Our Investigator considered the evidence and recommended the complaint should not be upheld. On balance, he thought the issues Mrs P complained of wouldn’t have been developing or present at the point of supply and so he didn’t think the car was of unsatisfactory quality. Mrs P responded and said she didn’t agree. She didn’t think she had contributed to the overall failure of the engine because she had previously topped up 5 litres of engine oil and said she had a witness to verify this. I sent Moneybarn and Mrs P the provisional decision on 12 March 2026. My findings from this decision were as follows: In considering this complaint I’ve had regard to the relevant law and regulations; any regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice, and (if appropriate) what I

-- 1 of 7 --

consider good industry practice at the time. The conditional sale agreement entered into by Mrs P is a regulated consumer credit agreement and this Service is able to consider complaints relating to it. Moneybarn is also the supplier of the goods under this type of agreement and responsible for a complaint about its quality. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) covers agreements like the one Mrs P entered. Because Moneybarn supplied the car under a conditional sale agreement, there’s an implied term that it is of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. Cars are of satisfactory quality if they are of a standard that a reasonable person would find acceptable, taking into account factors such as the age and mileage of the car and the price paid. At the outset, I think it is important to make clear that I will be upholding this complaint. As a result, I will recommend that Moneybarn supports the rejection of the vehicle. However, this decision is not based on the later faults associated with the engine failure, which in my view did not render the car of unsatisfactory quality at the time it was supplied. I’ll explain why. The CRA says the quality of goods includes the general state and condition, and other things such as its fitness for purpose, appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects and safety can be aspects of the quality of the goods. Satisfactory quality also covers durability. For cars, this means the components must last a reasonable amount of time. Of course, durability will depend on various factors. In Mrs P’s case the car was used and covered approximately 88,000 miles and was about eight years old when she acquired it. So, I’d have different expectations of it compared to a brand-new car. The CRA implies that goods must confirm to contract within the first six months. So, where a fault is identified within the first six months, it’s assumed the fault was present when the car was supplied, unless Moneybarn can show otherwise. But, where the fault is identified after the first six months, the CRA implies that it’s for Mrs P to show it was present when the car was supplied. So, if I thought the car was faulty when Mrs P took possession of it, and this made the car not of satisfactory quality, it’d be fair and reasonable to ask Moneybarn to put this right. It is not disputed by either party that there were issues with the car and the findings of independent reports and diagnostic reports commissioned by both parties confirm this. Under the CRA, consumers have a short term right to reject goods that do not conform to contract. This right lasts for 30 days from the date of delivery or collection and allows the consumer to reject goods and claim a full refund without giving the trader an opportunity to repair or replace them first. Mrs P contacted Moneybarn on 28 July 2025 and asked to reject the vehicle over the phone. This request was made within 30 days of acquiring the car, which is significant. Under normal circumstances, if a consumer reports a fault within the first 30 days and the fault is considered likely to have been present or developing at the time the vehicle was supplied, the business would usually be required to either repair the fault or allow the consumer to reject the vehicle, unless the consumer agrees otherwise. Having reviewed the evidence available, I am persuaded that it is more likely than not that the vehicle had a fault within the first 30 days, and therefore Moneybarn should have permitted Mrs P to reject the vehicle when she first requested to do so.

-- 2 of 7 --

The contact notes provided by Moneybarn confirm that Mrs P initially reported exhaust fumes entering the vehicle and a crack in the roof. While these issues alone may not necessarily render a vehicle of unsatisfactory quality, the notes also show that Mrs P contacted Moneybarn again the following day. She made further contact on 29 June 2025, and at that time the records suggest she raised an additional fault with the vehicle, although the notes do not provide further details about what that fault was. On 30 July 2025, Moneybarn asked Mrs P to provide evidence of the faults she had reported. The correspondence outlined the types of evidence that would be acceptable. I have reviewed a copy of an email sent on the same day which states: “Hi, this is the second email with a video of the horn not working. Thank you.” While I do not have access to the video Mrs P referenced, I am satisfied on balance that the vehicle’s horn was not functioning. Mrs P reported the issue within the first 30 days and provided evidence in support of this claim. Furthermore, Mrs P arranged for a diagnostic inspection in August 2025. The diagnostic report categorically confirms that the horn was not working. The horn is an important safety feature and must be operational for a vehicle to be considered roadworthy. I also have a copy of an email Moneybarn sent to the broker on 23 September 2025. It says: ‘While the evidence is dated outside of the first 30 days, the customer logged the complaint within the first 30 days, therefore, the time is paused at this point to allow the customer to provide evidence. The customer obtained a diagnostic, which outlined that the horn was not working (which was raised within 30 days) and further issues in relation to an oil leak from the timing chain cover. Therefore, the customer is within their right to reject the vehicle under the CRA15 as evidence has been provided, and issues were raised within the first 30 days. Please note, the non-working car horn will result in an MOT failure in the UK because it is a mandatory safety feature designed to alert other road users, and a functioning horn is legally required for safe driving. To pass, the horn must sound a continuous, uniform, and sufficiently loud note. The most recent MOT completed on the vehicle was on 12/03/2025, which would be over 3 months prior to the customer purchasing the vehicle. Had a new MOT been completed prior to the customer’s purchase, we believe it would have failed at this point. Can you please provide your agreement to the rejection of this vehicle within the next 5 days, based on the evidence provided…’ Taking all of this evidence into account, I am persuaded that the horn was not functioning when Mrs P acquired the vehicle. Since she reported this fault within the first 30 days and exercised her short-term right to reject, I believe that rejection should have been allowed at that time. Later engine failure It appears that Moneybarn were at one stage willing to support the rejection of the vehicle. In an email dated 6 October 2025, it confirmed that an agreement had been reached to unwind

-- 3 of 7 --

the agreement. However, while Moneybarn was continuing its investigation and liaising with the broker and supplying dealership, additional issues came to light. Mrs P informed Moneybarn on 21 August 2025 that a garage had suggested the vehicle’s issues could be related to the camshaft or the timing chain. Later, on 22 September 2025, Mrs P notified Moneybarn that she had continued driving the vehicle and that the crankshaft had failed and the timing chain had snapped. She subsequently obtained a quotation for repairs which was approximately £10,000. The broker then arranged for an independent inspection, which was conducted on 16 October 2025. The inspection report confirmed that the vehicle’s mileage at that time was 96,051 miles, meaning Mrs P had driven approximately 8,000 miles since acquiring the vehicle. The report noted oil leakage around the engine and evidence of oil bypass through the turbocharger. Based on the evidence available, the inspecting engineer concluded that the engine’s oil level had likely been allowed to drop to a critically low level. The report also explained that this particular engine was not fitted with an oil level sensor or warning system, meaning the vehicle relied heavily on the operator carrying out regular maintenance checks. The engineer suggested that the initial cause of the engine failure was bearing wear, and stated that the resulting engine damage could potentially have been avoided if regular maintenance checks had been carried out. Taking into account the time that had passed and the mileage driven since purchase, the report did not conclude that the engine fault was present or developing at the point of supply. In my view, the independent inspection is the most persuasive piece of evidence regarding the engine failure. It was carried out by a qualified motor technician and supported by clear mechanical reasoning and inspection findings. The conclusions are also consistent with known failure patterns associated with engine oil starvation, which lends further credibility to the report. For these reasons, I am satisfied that it is reasonable to rely on this report. The engineer also commented that: ‘Based on the evidence available, and the advice of the original oil level and amount required to replenish the vehicle, it is considered that the operator has allowed the oil level to drop to a critical state. The Ingenium engine is not fitted with an oil level sensor or warning, and therefore, this is heavily reliant on the operator conducting regular maintenance checks. Modern engines can naturally consume around 1 litre of oil per 1000 miles travelled due to the thinner viscosities now used, however, if the turbocharger is also bypassing oil, the rate of consumption will significantly increase. As the level between minimum and maximum on the dipstick is around 1 litre, this means that the level can fall to a critical state in a short period of time if the operator does not conduct regular checks. It is therefore considered that the initial cause is bearing wear, and the engine damage could have been avoided with regular maintenance checks.

-- 4 of 7 --

Taking into consideration the substantial amount of time and mileage successfully elapsed since inception, we do not consider the defects to have been developing at that point’. It concluded: ‘…based on the evidence available, and the advised significantly low level, it is considered that the engine has been damaged due to the level being allowed to drop to a critical state. It is considered that earlier intervention would have prevented losses. The defect is not considered to have been developing at inception.’ The report indicates that earlier intervention may have prevented the loss. I have also considered the information that Moneybarn advised Mrs P very early in the complaint process not to continue driving the vehicle due to the reported faults. However, after reviewing Moneybarn’s contact notes, I am satisfied that Mrs P continued to use the vehicle despite this advice. Taking all of this into account, I do not consider that the engine failure was caused by a fault that was present or developing at the point of supply. As a result, I will not be directing Moneybarn to cover the cost of the engine repair. However, I am satisfied that Mrs P exercised her short-term right to reject the vehicle within the first 30 days due to the horn not working. This is a significant safety issue and means the vehicle did not meet the standard required at the time it was supplied. For this reason, I will be recommending that Moneybarn supports the rejection of the vehicle. Putting things right: In general, when a car is rejected and returned to the lender because it was not of satisfactory quality, we’d expect the finance to end and be recorded as settled and the consumer to receive a full refund of the deposit. We’d also usually expect any reasonable out of pocket expenses to be reimbursed and award compensation for any lost or impaired use and, relevant distress and inconvenience. I have thought about fair redress in all the circumstances. Moneybarn should end the agreement ensuring Mrs P is not liable for any monthly payments after the point of collection and it should collect the car at no cost to Mrs P. Moneybarn should also remove all adverse information in relation to the agreement from Mrs P’s credit file. Based on the information available, Mrs P was able to use the vehicle without significant issue until September 2025, when the car ultimately became unusable. In cases where a consumer has been unable to use a vehicle because it was of unsatisfactory quality, I would normally direct the business to refund the monthly repayments made during the period the consumer could not use the vehicle. However, in this case I do not consider that the vehicle became unusable because of a fault that was present or developing at the point of supply. Therefore, I will not be directing Moneybarn to refund monthly repayments on that basis. That said, I have taken into account the fact that the horn was not functioning from the start, which would have impaired Mrs P’s use and enjoyment of the vehicle. Because of this reduced usability, I think it is fair that Moneybarn refunds 15% of all monthly payments made

-- 5 of 7 --

from the start of the agreement until September 2025, when the vehicle failed. In addition, Mrs P is entitled to a full refund of her deposit, which is consistent with the outcome I would normally recommend when a vehicle is rejected under these circumstances. Finally, I have considered the distress and inconvenience Mrs P experienced as a result of the faulty goods and the issues surrounding the complaint. Moneybarn has already offered and paid £200 in compensation, which I believe is fair and in line with what I would likely have recommended had no offer been made. Moneybarn has also offered to reimburse £97.63 to cover the cost of the diagnostic report and health check that Mrs P arranged. I understand this amount has already been paid. I consider this reimbursement to be both fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I intend to direct MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED trading as Moneybarn to allow Mrs P to reject the car and: - End the agreement, ensuring Mrs P is not liable for any monthly payments after the point of collection (if any payments are made, these should be refunded). - Collect the car at no collection cost to Mrs P. - Refund the deposit Mrs P paid (if any part of this deposit is made up of funds paid through a dealer contribution, Moneybarn is entitled to retain that proportion of the deposit). - Refund 15% of the monthly repayments from the point of inception to the date of the engine failure in September 2025 to reflect impaired use as directed in my findings above. - Apply 8% simple yearly interest on the refunds, calculated from the date Mrs P made the payments to the date of settlement. - Remove any adverse enteries relating to this agreement from Mrs P’s credit file. *If HM Revenue & Customs requires Moneybarn to take off tax from this interest, Moneybarn must give Mrs P a certificate showing how much tax it has taken off if she asks for one. For clarity, I am not directing Moneybarn to cover the cost of repairs due to the engine failure, the liability of these costs lies with Mrs P for reasons I’ve explained. Responses I gave both parties two weeks to come back with any further information or evidence. Moneybarn confirmed it had nothing further to add and accepted my findings. Mrs P also accepted my findings and provided details of her witness. 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 thought about everything again and having carefully considered the comments Mrs P has made in her recent response, I see no reason to deviate from my initial findings. Mrs P provided details of a third party who she says witnessed her topping up the oil. Whilst I appreciate her sharing this, I haven’t contacted the third party as I don’t think this would

-- 6 of 7 --

alter my findings. I say this because even if I’m persuaded Mrs P topped up the oil as she said she did, it doesn’t take away the fact that she continued to drive the vehicle when she was strongly advised not to. So, it follows that I think this was a contributing factor in the overall engine failure. Putting things right Taking all of this into account I am directing Moneybarn to put things right and; - End the agreement, ensuring Mrs P is not liable for any monthly payments after the point of collection (if any payments are made, these should be refunded). - Collect the car at no collection cost to Mrs P. - Refund the deposit Mrs P paid (if any part of this deposit is made up of funds paid through a dealer contribution, Moneybarn is entitled to retain that proportion of the deposit). - Refund 15% of the monthly repayments from the point of inception to the date of the engine failure in September 2025 to reflect impaired use as directed in my findings above. - Apply 8% simple yearly interest on the refunds, calculated from the date Mrs P made the payments to the date of settlement. - Remove any adverse enteries relating to this agreement from Mrs P’s credit file. *If HM Revenue & Customs requires Moneybarn to take off tax from this interest, Moneybarn must give Mrs P a certificate showing how much tax it has taken off if she asks for one. For clarity, I am not directing Moneybarn to cover the cost of repairs due to the engine failure, the liability of these costs lies with Mrs P for reasons I’ve explained. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and direct MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED trading as Moneybarn to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Rajvinder Pnaiser Ombudsman

-- 7 of 7 --