MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED · DRN-5992391

The complaint Miss R is unhappy with the information being reported on her credit file by MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED (Moneybarn). When I refer to what Miss R or Moneybarn have said or done, it should also be taken to include things said or done on their behalf. What happened In December 2021, Miss R entered into a conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn to acquire a used car first registered in July 2014. The cash price of the car was around £5,595. Miss R was to repay the amount of credit and the total charge for credit by way of 57 equally consecutive monthly payments each of £188.85. Miss R said that Moneybarn has been incorrectly reporting missed payments on her credit file since January 2022. She said that, due to financial difficulties following Covid 19, she made a decision to exit the agreement. However, Moneybarn wrongly recorded 33 out of 42 payments since January 2022 as missed payments. Miss R said she is unsure, but that she missed around seven payments in total. As such, she raised a complaint with Moneybarn, who have admitted that they have been incorrectly reporting missed payments to her credit file and failing to update her personal information accurately. Miss R said this caused her serious financial and emotional harm. She said her credit score has been substantially tarnished, leading to multiple rejections for financial products including loans, overdrafts, payment plans. She said she was refused housing applications because her credit file showed missed payments within the last 12 months. Miss R said that £75 compensation offered by Moneybarn is inadequate to reflect the impact the situation had on her and she believes that she should be compensated in the amount of £1,500. In August 2025, Moneybarn wrote to Miss R. In this correspondence they said they agree they got things wrong and shared how they plan to put things right. Moneybarn said that Miss R proceeded with voluntary surrender on 8 January 2024, following the issuance of a Suspended Return of Goods Order. This process was carried out in accordance with the terms of Miss R’s agreement and relevant legal procedures. They said they appreciate that since March 2024 Miss R made payments toward the outstanding balance. Moneybarn explained that when a payment plan is in place and maintained, their reporting to the Credit Reference Agencies (CRAs) should have reflected only the outstanding balance and not include missed or late payment markers. They said that upon liaising with the relevant department and reviewing the reporting history, they can confirm that the information submitted to the CRAs was incorrect and did not accurately reflect the status of Miss R’s account under the payment arrangement. Moneybarn said they sincerely regret this error, and that they are taking steps to correct the reporting to ensure it accurately reflects Miss R’s current position. Also, to put things right, they have refunded her £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused, to be deducted from her agreement to help with her outstanding balance. They also said they have requested an

-- 1 of 3 --

amendment to Miss R’s credit file to rectify this error which, they said, may take up to 60 days to reflect with the CRAs. This is because it depends on their update period, which Moneybarn said they have no control over. They also explained that some reporting agencies can take even longer. Miss R was unhappy with Moneybarn’s response, so she brought her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (Financial Ombudsman). Our investigator felt that the £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused was fair and reasonable in addition to Miss R’s credit file being amended. The investigator did not think Moneybarn needed to take any further action regarding her complaint. Miss R did not accept the investigator’s outcome. As such, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. In considering what is fair and reasonable, I need to take into account the relevant rules, guidance, the law, and, where appropriate, what would be considered to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. Miss R acquired the car under a conditional sale agreement, which is a regulated consumer credit agreement. Our service can look at these sorts of agreements. I have summarised this complaint briefly, in less detail than has been provided, and largely in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. If there is something I have not mentioned, I have not ignored it. I have not commented on every individual detail. But I have focussed on those that are central to me reaching, what I think is, the right outcome. This reflects the informal nature of the Financial Ombudsman as a free alternative to the courts. In addition, in this decision I only focused on the aspects I can look into. Also, I am only looking at the events that have been raised by Miss R with Moneybarn, the ones they had an opportunity to address in their correspondence sent to her in August 2025. First it is important to explain that Moneybarn had an obligation to report accurate information to the credit reference agencies. I understand that for some time Moneybarn was reporting incorrect and negative information to the relevant CRAs. However, they have since agreed to make the necessary amendments and have agreed to reduce the amount Miss R owes on the credit agreement by £75 to reflect the distress and innocence that was caused to her. Miss R said that she was unable to get credit and was refused housing applications while the information on her credit file was being reported incorrectly. As such, I’ve considered this, but I’ve not seen enough evidence for me to conclude that Moneybarn’s reporting of adverse information on Miss R’s credit file was most likely the reason for Miss R directly incurring a loss. From the available evidence, I have not seen anything to suggest that the specific adverse information recorded on her credit file was the direct reason she could not obtain credit. Therefore, I cannot say that, most likely, it is Moneybarn’s action that directly caused her a financial detriment. Miss R also feels that the £75 compensation offered by Moneybarn is not enough because, she feels, it does not properly reflect the amount of distress and inconvenience she

-- 2 of 3 --

has endured. However, Miss R has not provided our service with any information to substantiate any direct financial loss. Also, I’ve taken into consideration everything she told us about the impact Moneybarn’s mistake had on her. Considering everything, I think Moneybarn’s errors have caused Miss R distress and inconvenience when she was trying to sort these out. However, I feel that Moneybarn’s offer of £75 fairly reflects the impact their errors had on her. I know that Miss R feels that on certain complaints we have awarded higher amount of compensation and she made references to other cases at this service. However, the Financial Ombudsman provides informal dispute resolution, our decisions do not create binding precedents. Whilst there may be similarities between complaints, all complaints are considered on their individual facts and merits. Here, I make my decision based on what I think is fair and reasonable considering the all the circumstances – including relevant laws and regulations – of this particular complaint. And, based on everything available in this complaint, I think £75 fairly reflects the impact of the situation. Miss R also told us that Moneybarn continue to report incorrectly on her credit file. She feels that the outstanding amount is not correct, the monthly payment is not correct, and that certain payments are still not correctly reflecting on her credit file, even though it has been 60 days since Moneybarn said they would do the corrections. However, on numerous occasions the investigator requested that Miss R provides us with her full credit file. We also asked specifically for her to tell us which figures are incorrect and what they should be, but this has not been provided. As such, based on the available evidence, I have not seen enough to be able to say that, most likely, there is still information that is being incorrectly reported on Miss R’s credit file. While I sympathise with Miss R for the difficulties that she is experiencing, based on all the information available in this case, I do not think it is fair or reasonable for me to require Moneybarn to take any further action regarding her complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss R to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Mike Kozbial Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --