Moneybarn round three

So, Moronbarn , if you’ve seen my last two posts you’ll know the issues I’ve had with them.

Well today I received an email in response to my Moneybarn round two email.

This is what they said…..

Dear Mr T

Thank you for your email. To assist you effectively, we would need to discuss your specific agreement in more detail.

We kindly request that you contact our Customer Services Department at your earliest convenience. Speaking with you directly will allow us to provide tailored support and address any concerns you may have.

You can reach us on 0330 555 1230, Monday to Friday, between 8:30 am and 7:00 pm (excluding bank holidays).

We look forward to speaking with you soon.

Kind regards,

Jenino

 

Now, either the writer of this email has not read my earlier correspondence, or they are extremely daft. Why would anyone ring money barn after already calling them? And having to go through all of these stupidity culminating in my email that appears in money barn round two.

I am confident that if I do ring moneybarn again I will be presented with the same inane waffle, the same weapons grade level of incompetence and the same stupidity that money bun make themselves so famous for already.

So on this occasion, and for the sake of my sanity, I think I’ll respectfully decline their proposal and leave it up to the financial ombudsman, to deal with their madness.

All I would say is for anyone planning on signing up to a higher purchase agreement with money barn, just don’t do it unless you are a gluten for punishment

MoneyBarn Round 2.

So, Moneybarn, the gift that keeps giving have returned with even more stupidity.

To explain the issue i simply set out below the email that i sent them today.

Dear Sirs

I write further to my discussions with Kyle at your firm on 24^th April 2025 at around 5pm.

I wish to place on record my utter frustration at the sheer stupidity that I have faced in trying to deal with this matter. Your staff continuously try to argue the unarguable. Your staff furthermore appear to be acting contrary to the FCA  Handbook, in particular CONC 7.14.1 and 7.14.2.

I urge you to listen to the call. But to place on record, these are the key points that arose in the call.

1. I asked Kyle to look at the second page of my credit agreement under the heading “Termination: Your Rights” , Kyle confirmed that the 50% point under my agreement was £6642.81. That was the maximum I would have to pay if I terminated my agreement under normal circumstances.
2. I then asked Kyle to look at the letter you sent me dated 28^th February, I asked him to note the sum above the QR code on the second page. He confirmed that your letter of 28^th Feb 2025 asked for payment of £175 as being the amount that would likely be due if I terminated the agreement.
3. I asked kyle to confirm, on 3^rd or 4^th March, were there any payments made by me. He confirmed there were, and that the payment made was £62.44 on 4^th March,
4. I then asked Kyle, if the amount owing, was £175, and I paid £62.44 on 4^th March, how could the amount due still be said to be £175, simple maths shows it is simply not possible to minus £62.44 from £175 and still have £175 owing.
5. I asked Kyle to confirm how much I had actually paid under the agreement; he confirmed that I had paid £6,642.84.
6. I then asked kyle to confirm how I could possibly owe £175 and where that £175 came from. Kyle said that the £175 was due to a missed payment in March 2025. I pointed out that this was not the case, because I had terminated the agreement on 27^th February 2025. Therefore, as a matter of law, the agreement terminated at that point, there was no duty to make a further payment in March. However, I drew Kyles attention to the fact that I had actually called Moneybarn and paid £62.44, an amount that I was told to pay to bring the account up to 50% or as you call it the half rule. Kyle suggested that the £175 was the remaining amount from the March payment, after the £62.44 was deducted. I pointed out this could not be the case because in fact £175 plus £62.44 was actually £237.44 whereas my monthly payment was £225.18, thus this could not be correct either.
7. I drew Kyles attention to the letter your company had sent me, dated 4^th April 2025. I referred Kyle back to my agreement, it stated to VT I had to pay £6,642.81. I then drew Kyles attention to the letter of 4^th April where it said I HAD PAID £6,642.84!!!! 3 pence more than what I was required to pay to meet the 50% threshold. I asked Kyle IF I HAVE PAID 50% HOW DO I HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY TO GET TO 50% WHEN IVE ALREADY BLOOODY PAID 50%? He couldn’t answer. I then drew Kyle to the erroneous figure in the letter of 4^th April 2025 where the writer of that letter must be visually impaired because they had written that my agreement states that I had to pay £6817 to meet 50%. I took Kyle through some simple maths, I asked
   1. What is the total amount payable under the agreement? £13,285.62 kyle said.
   2. I asked what is 50% of £13,285.62? £6642.81 Kyle said
   3. I asked how much have I paid? £6642.84 kyle said.
   4. What would the total amount of payable be, if 50% was £6817.84? Kyle didn’t answer because I gave him the sum of £13,635.68. This, it was accepted was not the total amount payable under my agreement.
8. I then asked Kyle about the letter you had sent on 24^th April. I said to kyle, in the letter of 4^th April, you gave me £100 compensation. That sum appeared to have been taken off of the erroneous balance of £175, I then drew kyle to the letter of 25^th April, and highlighted that I had been awarded further £25 for the most recent breach of my data protection rights, and that had also been deducted from the remaining £75.00. If that was the case, why did Kyle still say I owe £175, why did the letter I have received on 24^th April say that I owe £75, when surely if £25 had been deducted, then the sum would be £50, ie £175 -£100 -£25= £50. Kyle could not offer any answer.

I have asked for someone to explain to me, how I owe this fictional number of £175, I have asked or someone to explain this to me but no one seems capable. Why? How can it be that you cannot explain this? Is it because the truth is I never owed £175 in the first place? The numbers, cannot lie, clearly show that I don’t owe this sum.

Can you please ask someone, literate in maths, preferably in a management position, to please give me a call and explain to me where my numbers are wrong? I mean, if I have paid 50%, and by law I am only required to pay 50%, and moneybarn accept that I have paid £6642.84 which is 3pence more than the 50% threshold, then how can I still owe £175 to bring my account up to the 50% threshold? Please explain this as even a maths professor from the Open University that I know has struggled to understand your numbers.

A personal case for a change Moneybarn “We cannot add up, we dont do figures, you owe us money that you dont owe us, we have written off the money you dont owe us”

Im sure over the years you will have come across an issue which is so obvious to resolve, yet so infuriating because the company is so daft that it makes matters worst not better. Well thats exactly my issue right now.

In 2022 i purchased a car on hire purchase, the total amount payable was £13,285.62, over 60 months. i had the car over two years, it was a great car but the issue was that i already had another car, and a bike, so i couldnt justify keeping this second vehicle. So i decided to Voluntary Terminate. i had paid nearly 50%, i was £62.44 short of the 50% threshold, so i wrote a letter to Money Barn telling them i was terminating. They wrote back telling me i could terminate??? well yes, i know, i had already done so. Then i had to give them my date of birth, for ID purposes or they wouldnt reply to my emails. Weird. Anyway, i VT’d on 27th Feb, i received a letter on 28th telling me i owed £175 to take the amount to 50%. I didnt but hey ho.

I rang Moneybarn, my goodness, the guy i spoke to was hopeless. At one point he actually said he didnt understand numbers,couldnt add up and couldnt understand my issues. Anyway, i explained to Rafeeq that the total under my agreement was £13,285.62 and 50% of that was £6,642.81 and according to the Moneybarn account screen my balance was showing as £6,642.78 therefore it must either be

A) The system is wrong or

B) I have paid more than 50%

I was told i had paid £6580 and that there was still £6480.08 to pay. I pointed out that those figures didnt make sense as they didnt add up to £13,285.62. I asked Rafeeq to talk me though how many payments i had made, he said i had paid £6580.40 which meant i owed £62.41 to reach 50%. Rafeeq kept telling me i owed £175 to meet the half figure. Numbers dont lie, i clearly didnt owe this, and it is shocking a lender cannot work out the figures.

Anyway, i rang Moneybarn back on the 28th, i was told i would get a call back to discuss the £175 but it was accepted that if i paid £62.44 it would take me over the half figure. I did just that and paid.

Over the following weeks, i had Moneybarn claim the vehicle required £2000 worth of work, it did not and had a expert inspection carried out before it left my driveway, when i asked what the £2,000 was for they couldnt tell me. They claimed i owed £175 and everytime i spoke to them (15th, 17th, 20th 24th March) i was promised a call back as they didnt know what the £175 was for, then i received a letter in response to a complaint i never made, saying this

Now then, there is a slight problem here. See my agreement says this

See the obvious problem???? So on the one hand they say ive paid 50% but then they say 50% is in fact £6817, which is patently wrong, and wouldnt equal the £6642.81 figure.

Now i have tried at least ten times to speak to Moneybarn, to speak with someone who understands how to add up and can deal with this, they do not have anyone it seems, or so they say, who speak to customers about their issues. This is sooo sooo simple to resolve, yet Moneybarn have now forced me to go to the Financial Ombudsman because to top it all off, they have now posted £175 outstanding on my credit file, and have shown me in arrears, when i clearly am not. To make matters worst, they said they were giving me £100 compensation yet they set that off against the £175 that i didnt owe.

Never in my life have i experienced such lunacy.

Lowell Portfolio. The gift that just keeps on giving.

Companies like Lowells issue claims daily via the bulk processing centre. From what i see id be very surprised if they even checked their claims before submitting them to the Court. This was exactly the issue with the hearing which took place last week.

Lowells issued a claim for an overdraft. They alleged that the overdraft was regulated by the 1974 Consumer Credit Act. They alleged that the account was sold by the Lloyds Banking Group. They alleged that the Defendant failed to maintain regular payments and the agreement was terminated.

On first glance you may say, well thats right isnt it? whats wrong with that? they have made their claim?

No, they havent, because the claim unravelled completley.

Lowells claimed that despite their pleading the 1974 Act did not apply. They were wrong. Their documents contradicted their claim. The assignment wasnt from Lloyds Banking Group. The Default notice was actaully remedied in 2012 as the statements showed, thus per PRA v Doyle, they had no cause of action, certainly not for breach as pleaded. There were more holes in this case than a swiss cheese.

I wrote to Overdales back in February making it clear their claim was hopeless. I made it clear it was doomed to fail. I invited them to withdraw. They simply ignored me. So i applied for summary judgment and or a strike out.

5 months later, they tried at the eleventh hour they try to lodge a witness statement setting out a materially different case. The Judge did not accept this, he found that s87 CCA 1974 rendered their claim hopeless, and Judgment was granted in the clients favour. Costs were also awarded, we recovered around 87% of the bill for the client.

I should place on record my thanks to Thomas Brennan for his excellent advocacy.

The importance of checking your dates.

A recent case involving Lowell Portfolio I Limited shows the importance of checking your dates for limitation purposes.

In this case, a default notice had been served in 2008, there was no copy of the notice available from the creditor, and it wasn’t necessary at that stage to ask the customer to find the Default notice as there were no issues relating to the validity of the notice. It was accepted by both sides a notice had been served in 2008.

The 6 year limitation period would have ended in 2014, and in 2013 a request was made under s78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 to which the original creditor confirmed it could not comply with. That was the point where all communication ceased and no further payments were made.

Lowell’s purchased the debt, and decided to try and enforce it against the customer some 9 years after limitation had expired. It would seem they overlooked the issue of limitation, unsurprising given the sausage factory approach they employ to debt recovery.

A letter to Lowells pointing out the obvious difficulties in their case was enough to bring the matter to a close.

Its been a while

Crikey!!!! its been a while since i blogged. A hell of a lot has happened since, i lost my mum shortly after dad, she passed in November 2022, my grandson arrived in 2023, i moved firms in August 2023 and since then its been flat out. Ive had court cases that we have won, ive been looking at the caravan parks industry and have been focusing on parks for the last 18 months, its amazing how may shockingly poor contracts exist in the caravan park world. Unfair terms are routinely used, some contracts dont even have variation clauses in them, the park just does what it likes without any thought to the customer.

If anyone offered me a caravan on a park, before i started looking into the industry i may well have considered it, however, with what i know now, id rather vote conservative than buy a caravan on a park, and anyone who knows me knows thats one thing id never do…….vote tory….anyway, its certainly something that im looking into as there is a clear injustice perpetrated in the caravan world.

Anyway, i just thought it was about time i injected some life back into this blog. In 2024 im hoping to be able to report on a number of cases, including cases involving kitchen fitters, builders, conservatory installers and the usual banks, debt collectors etc.

Im working for Roach Pittis Solicitors now, we have two offices, one on the Isle of Wight and one on the mainland in Southampton. If you need to get in touch then email me on PT@Roachpittis.co.uk.

DAD

On 8th December 1943, my dad was born. He was raised by his grandad Alfred William Tilley as back then having a child out of wedlock was seen to be a sin. Alf was married to Lillian Tilley, she was in my dads eyes his mum, even though his birth mother was Alfred’s daughter Avis.

Dad never complained about his childhood, he was always content, he never had the toys that the kids of today have, he made do with toys that kids of today would turn their noses up at, but that was all they had after the war. Alf and Lillian never had a lot of money, Alf worked as a yard hand at the local Council yard, and Lill was a house wife.

Dad was always happy with what he had, i never once heard him complain about not having the best things, the best toys, dad was always happy with what he had, he appreciated things and he looked after them. He still has his wooden toys from when he was a child.

My dad learnt to drive on a Hilman SuperMinx, most people will have no idea what that is. Dad was taught to drive by Alf, when he passed his test in 1960, he had a Frog Eye Sprite, i can still remember the reg of that car, 592 CTA.

Dad met mum in 1970, they were married in 1973 and after an ill fated trip to Scotland, they came back with me. When i was born, dad had purchased his first shop which is now the Co Op in Boyatt Wood shops, Eastleigh. Dad went on to have a chain of shops, which he subsequently sold to his business partner.

Lillian passed away in 1974 and Alf passed away in 1983, they were both buried in Eastleigh where they lived their lives.

Dad was never out of work, he would not claim benefits, his view was that you pay into the system to help those less fortunate than you. My dad never went to college or university, he never had the chance, but he never ever found himself out of work, he worked as Area Manager and Regional Manager for a large corporation, one thing about dad that always stuck with me was his love for mathematics, he was excellent, he could work things out in his head quicker than i could on a calculator.

Dad made a few mistakes in his life, he would be the first to say that. His biggest was in 1976 when he was offered an 8 Litre Bentley for 25 quid, he said at the time he didn’t have the need for a gas guzzler like that although now he wished he had brought it. His biggest mistake was getting stung by a rogue mortgage lender, he was missold an endowment mortgage back in the early 90s, when the mortgage came to the end of the term it left dad facing the loss of the family home in 2008. I had left home 4 years earlier, so mum and dad decided that they would simply sell up and move to a small property, they tried to find somewhere local to us as i know they both wanted to stay close to their grandkids and to me and my partner.

Sadly the only house they could find in their price range, with nice surroundings and neighbours, was in Llanelli.

Mum and Dad moved in 2010, dad wasnt truly happy living that far away from us, but he made it work. We would go and see him regularly, our car mileage confirms that to be the case, as the car is now turning over 160,000 miles, it only had 20k on the clock when i brought it.

Dad never complained about his health, he was stubborn, anyone who knew him would know that you would not get him to do something if he didnt want to. Im afraid i have that trait too.

On Sunday, mum rang me to say that dad needed an ambulance, she didnt know what to do, she was quite upset, dad was awake and alert but he wasnt clearly not well. I rang 999 for them, and i spoke to my dad, his last word to me were “please look after you mum for me”. As i sit here typing, im crying, thinking about those words, i promised dad i would, i promised him i would take care of mum, and i will whatever is needed.

Dad passed away around 6pm on Sunday 24th July 2022. He will be missed. He was my best friend, he was my hero, he was my mums rock, he wasnt perfect, then again no one is. He was my world, my shoulder to cry on, my voice of reason, my daddy.

He will be sorely missed by all of the family. Rest in peace big guy.

Lowell Portfolio 1 Limited lose again

On Friday the Court was asked to determine a case that had been on going for some time now. The Claim started back in 2019, with Lowells issuing a hopeless claim, the pleading made no mention of a Default notice but did suggest the credit agreement had been terminated because of breach.

S87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 is clear, you cannot terminate for breach without service of a Default notice. Cases such as Harrison v Link, Brandon v Amex, and Doyle v PRA Group are clear that a Default notice is not something that you can over look or ignore.

An application for summary Judgment was made to have the Claim dismissed. The Judge sadly declined, and decided Lowells should have one last bite of the cherry. The Judge ordered the Claimants solicitors to file amended pleadings, and then for us to file a Defence.

The amended pleadings arrived, they were awful, truly awful, they did mention a Default notice at least but Lowells didn’t have it, in fact as we later found out they had the grand total of ZERO Evidence of a default notice. Anyway, we filed an amended Defence, and Lowells filed a reply which looked more like a witness statement, and seemed to contradict the amended claim.

Anyway, the parties filed witness statements, Lowells evidence was even worst than its claim which is clearly some feat in itself. The witness statement was from the solicitor, it made some sweeping assertions that the solicitor had been told that a Default notice had been sent (well that’s ok then!!) and that there was a screen print from the original creditor. The problems was, the screen print wasn’t what Lowells said it was, it appeared to be a entry that transferred the account to a debt collector, not service of a Default notice. Add to that the fact Lowells couldn’t even answer whether s86C Notices had been served, and required us, yes us, to clarify when we thought they should have been sent- Newsflash Mr Lowells, next time you have this issue, you have to prove the notices were sent, not the consumer having to tell you when they should have been sent!!!

We also had a failure to comply with s78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 too. Lowells answer to that was genius, or not as the case may be. They argued that because the agreement had been terminated they were not required to comply with s78(1) and that was that, but that they had sent what they needed to send anyway.

Again Lowells had issues, dealing with the latter point first, to comply with s78(1) you have to send the executed agreement in its original form and also the current terms where the agreement has been varied, we had statements showing numerous variations in the terms. We also had no current terms, no statement as required by s78(1). Now moving to the former point, Lowells had no evidence of termination, full stop, so if the agreement hasn’t been terminated, you have a duty to comply with s78(1), End of.

Lowells pushed this case all the way, we made an offer to settle on a drop hands basis, they refused, their offer was pay the claimed amount or we will add interest.

The case finally came to trial on Friday, and the Judge dismissed the Claim because Lowells couldn’t satisfy the Court that a Default notice had been issued. The Court declined to make a cost order sadly.

I do find it frustrating that consumers are put through this mill, having to deal with hopelessly poor claims, from debt purchasers who dont do their most basic homework first, bringing claims through hopelessly poor litigators, and where are the regulators in all this? The FCA took over from the OFT, this type of case is happening daily, on their watch, and they are it seems happy to let this happen. It is a scandal, it shouldnt be allowed and there should be a proper intervention by the regulator to stop this conduct.

Hire Purchase and Faulty Goods- don’t make these mistakes

Over the past few months, ive had a number of people get in touch with issues over Hire Purchase agreements, and defective goods. All of these cases have a common theme, the goods develop a fault, the consumer complains to the garage who sold the goods, the garage does a repair in some cases or simply ignores the issues and the consumer either rejects the goods to the garage, or eventually goes to the finance company only to be told that they have lost the short term right to reject because they took too long to bring the matter to the finance houses attention.

So where do you stand on a Hire Purchase agreement? Well most think that you buy the car from the garage or dealer, but you don’t. The finance house buys the vehicle, then then sell it to you. Your contract is, in most cases, with the finance house, they are the people responsible for ensuring your statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 are upheld. If you buy a car on finance such as Hire Purchase, you have 30 days to reject it, rejection means to the finance house not the garage in most circumstances. If you do not reject the goods within those 30 days then you lose the short term right to reject.

Under the Consumer Rights Act the seller has the right to attempt at least one repair once you are outside of the first 30 days, if they do repair the vehicle and it is still faulty then you would have the right to reject the goods potentially, but the rejection would need to be communicated to the correct party.

Most of the problems that arise from what i have seen are consumers not understanding how Hire Purchase works, and making the wrong decision, notifying the wrong company etc. The best advice i could give to any consumer , is if you have an issue with a defective vehicle, dont go it alone, if youre not sure get some advice.

Should you instruct a lawyer?

I recently acted in a case which highlights some of the real difficulties that people face when they act as a litigant in person.

I was instructed to represent a client who sold a motor vehicle via an online sales platform such as Autotrader. The description of the vehicle was quite reasonable and accurate. Now before i go further its worth pointing out that consumer to consumer transactions are generally much more limited in terms of statutory rights and protections. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 ( as amended) does apply, in particular s13 Sale by description applies and the item must match its description etc.

So, the customer advertised the vehicle, during the time it was advertised more information about the vehicle came to light, the advert was amended. Then, the Claimant contacted the customer, the customer told the Claimant all of the relevant information about the vehicle, and crucially the Claimant not only inspected the vehicle but test drove it too.

The Claimant was on notice that there may be issues with the vehicle but still purchased it. On the drive home there were a couple of warning lights that came on.

The Claimant made all kinds of demands, including for the customer to pay towards the repairs. The customer did offer to take the car back, but that was rejected, so the customer took the view that he had done all he was required to do and decided to do no more.

The Claimant sent a bizarre letter of claim, bizarre in the sense that it asked the customer to do nothing. The customer then received Court papers alleging that the vehicle was not as described. The position in respect of sale by description is set out in Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd – [1990] 1 All ER 737, to succeed with a claim for sale by description C will have to show the Court that the description was influential in his decision to purchase the vehicle and that the vehicle did not match the description.

The difficulty that the Claimant had was the issues he was raising were not issues over the description but issues that went to the quality of the goods. If only he had a lawyer representing him!!!!

The Claim failed to specify how the vehicle did not match its description. Numerous letters were sent asking for information, the Claimant refused and on occasion became quite rude. We ended up defending the Claim on the basis that if Cs claim was s14 SOGA then it was misconceived, if it was s13 then there was no pleading that established how the vehicle didn’t match its description and despite asking for further info C had refused to assist.

Witness statements were filed and served. We prepared a bundle and even that upset the Claimant, he refused to agree the bundle with us.

The case came to the Court for trial. C lost, comprehensively. Cross examination proved that he had failed to submit the correct evidence, for example it was alleged the service record was not a full history, “where do i find the service history?” i asked…………………………….”its not here” came back at me, the turbo was changed to a performance one was the allegation, “where do i find evidence of this” i asked, again it wasnt there. In fact, despite telling C what he had to do, and being told to “go away” in return, C simply had no evidence before the Court to prove his case. He may have had a truck load at home but that was as much use as a chocolate tea pot.

The Judge concluded that this was not sale by description, and that if she was wrong then the vehicle did match its description. The Claim faced wasnt just for the return of the purchase funds, it was for the costs of the repairs, it was in the circumstances worth defending. I applied for costs, but the Court declined, however the Claim was dismissed, the customer no longer had to face the prospect of paying a large sum in damages, and can move on with life.