MI Vehicle Finance Limited · DRN-6201574

The complaint Mr R complains that MIVF caused him significant distress and inconvenience due to it failing to notify him of the state of his account after he voluntarily terminated his agreement. What happened In January 2024 Mr R acquired a car funded by a hire purchase agreement provided by MIVF. He fell into financial difficulties and in May 2025 he decided to voluntarily terminate the agreement. The VT was actioned in June 2025 and the car was sold at auction around 20 July 2025. MIVF received the funds some five days later. The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) were acting on behalf of Mr R and tried to contact MIVF to obtain the balance remaining after the VT so they could set up a debt relief order (DRO) for him. They didn’t receive any response from MIVF to their requests nor did MIVF provide the information to Mr R. This meant he was unable to proceed with the DRO. In late August 2025 Mr R contacted MIVF and complained. It issued a final response letter to Mr R on 1 October 2025. MIVF accepted it had made a mistake and hadn’t let him know in good time his account balance so he could deal with that. It said the collection team would be in touch. That team wrote to him on 2 November 2025 to let him know the amount due and inviting him to contact it to discuss payment. Mr R brought a complaint to this service where it was considered by one of our investigators who recommended it be upheld. He believed MIVF should have informed Mr R of the sum due so he could make arrangements to deal with his finances by 1 August 2025. He recognised the impact on Mr R and the problems he had faced due to him having to delay seeking a DRO and suggested MIVF pay Mr R £400. It agreed, but Mr R felt he was entitled to £1,250 due to the significant impact MIVF’s actions had on him. I issued a provisional decision as follows:

-- 1 of 3 --

“I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. When the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory as some of it is here – I’ve reached my outcome on the balance of probabilities – that is, what I consider likely to have happened given the available evidence and the wider circumstances. I want to acknowledge that I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I also want to assure Mr R that I’ve reviewed everything on file. If I don’t comment on something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it. It’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this. I should make it clear that the role of the Financial Ombudsman Service is to resolve individual complaints and to award redress where appropriate. I do not perform the role of the industry regulator and I do not have the power to make rules for financial businesses or to punish them. It is acknowledged that MIVF failed to inform Mr R of the balance due after the sale of the car after it was auctioned. The car was sold on 20 July and it should have let him know the outstanding balance by 1 August. It knew Mr R was in financial difficulties and CAB was in contact trying to find out the information as soon as possible so a DRO could be put in place. Mr R complained in late August and despite knowing the situation MIVF did not respond until 1 October. However, I see from its internal records that it was aware of the situation on 23 September and yet it delayed responding by a week. Furthermore, despite it being aware of the failure its collections team did not provide the information Mr R needed until 20 November. I have not seen any reason or justification for the continued delay by MIVF. Mr R was facing and continues to face significant financial pressure and he has sought help from CAB to deal with his debts. This process was significantly delayed by MIVF. Furthermore, Mr R had reason to expect the matter to be resolved without further delay after MIVF issued its final response letter, but it left him waiting almost two months for the information he needed to set up the DRO. As a result, I consider the compensation due should be increased to £600 to reflect the ongoing delays and pressure Mr R had to endure while waiting for MIVF to act. “ 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. MIVF accepted my provisional decision as did Mr R, but he asked that MIVF should provide a written apology acknowledging the delays and the distress it had caused him. I appreciate Mr R would like an apology, but one made under direction from me would have little or no meaning. So I will not direct MIVF to do so, but I believe it should consider if it is the right thing to do. I would also encourage both parties to act without delay to ensure the DRO is put in place and any other matters are addressed quickly and properly. MIVF has a duty of care towards Mr R and should ensure it acts appropriately.

-- 2 of 3 --

Putting things right MIVF should pay £600 direct to Mr R without delay and not deduct that sum from any debt he has with it. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint and I direct MI Vehicle Finance Limited trading as Mann Island Vehicle Finance to pay Mr R £600 as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr R to accept or reject my decision before 6 April 2026. Ivor Graham Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --