DRN-6235127

The complaint As part of a conditional sale agreement to purchase a vehicle, Moneybarn No.1 Limited (Moneybarn) provided Mr M with a loan of £21,501.92, with a 59-month term in November 2023. It had a 21.5% APR and monthly repayments of £570.96. Mr M says the loan was provided irresponsibly. What happened The details of this complaint are well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here. The facts aren’t in dispute, so I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my 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. Having considered everything, I’m not upholding Mr M’s complaint. I’ll explain my reasoning below. 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 M’s case. I’ve decided the loan was provided fairly because: • I don’t think the checks Moneybarn did before providing the loan were reasonable and proportionate given the size of the loan being provided and what it knew about Mr M’s financial situation. Given the sums involved and the duration of the repayments, I think Moneybarn should have done more to understand if the lending would be affordable and Mr M could make the repayments sustainably throughout the full term. • If Moneybarn had done proportionate checks, I don’t think it’s likely these would have shown it was unfair to provide the loan to Mr M. • Moneybarn verified Mr M’s income via a Credit Reference Agency (CRA) and by obtaining his pay slips. The information from CRAs showed he was managing his accounts well. Because of this, I think Moneybarn carried out adequate checks on his income and his creditworthiness. But, it should have asked more questions about his committed monthly expenditure. • I’ve reviewed Mr M’s bank statements for the three-month period prior to taking out the loan. That’s not to say that I think it was necessary for Moneybarn to do this. Further checks could have been carried out in a variety of ways, but the statements suggest Moneybarn could have reasonably concluded Mr M had sufficient money to make the monthly repayments after his non-discretionary committed expenditure. So,

-- 1 of 2 --

based on this information, there was nothing to suggest Mr M was likely to be unable to sustainably repay what he was being lent. • Mr M has shared that he was suffering with his mental health at the time and that he was in a vulnerable situation. I appreciate it may have been difficult for Mr M to share this information with us, and I’m sorry to hear about the difficult time he experienced. But I’ve seen nothing on file which suggests that he told Moneybarn about his situation. In these circumstances, I can’t fairly conclude that Moneybarn has acted unfairly toward him. • Mr M also points out that his income was fluctuating and this was something that Moneybarn should have done more to understand. This wasn’t reflected in the income verification checks – nor have I seen anything to suggest that Mr M told Moneybarn about this. As I think Moneybarn’s income verification checks were adequate, I don’t agree it acted irresponsibly here. • I don’t think Moneybarn acted unfairly in any other way. This means I don’t think Moneybarn did anything wrong when it provided the loan to Mr M. 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 M 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 isn’t the outcome Mr M hoped for. But for the reasons above, I’m not asking Moneybarn to do anything to put things right. My final decision My final decision is that I’m not upholding Mr M’s complaint about Moneybarn. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. John Butler Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --