Hire Purchase Decision Reference 2025-0196

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2025
• Reference: 2025-0196
• Date: 18 December 2025
• Subject Matter: Hire Purchase
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Selling loan to third party provider,Failure to provide accurate account/balance information

Decision Ref:

2025-0196

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Hire Purchase

Conduct(s) complained of:

Selling loan to third party provider

Failure to provide accurate account/balance

information

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

Background

This complaint relates to a hire purchase agreement (“the Agreement”) held by the

Complainant with the Provider.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submits that in 2008 he entered into the Agreement with a Third-Party

Provider to purchase a car. The Complainant further submits that following an arson attack

on his car in or about 2009 he made a claim under his insurance policy. The Complainant

states that the claim was paid, and he forwarded this payment to the Third-Party Provider.

The Complainant says that receipt of this payment was confirmed. The Complainant

submits that the Third-Party Provider did not advise him of any outstanding balance, and

he understood that the debt was therefore cleared.

The Complainant states that he became aware in or about 2021 that the debt had been

acquired by the Provider when checking his credit rating, and he subsequently found that

the Provider was reporting the Finance Agreement to the Central Credit Register (“the

CCR”). The Complainant further contends that he “does not recall being informed that [the

Provider] had acquired an interest in the loan agreement”.

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The Complainant submits that following on from learning that the Provider had acquired

an interest in the Agreement, he discovered that legal proceedings were issued in 2009 by

the Third-Party Provider “in connection with the loan agreement”. The Complainant states

that he was totally unaware of this at the time and did not become aware of these

proceedings until discussions commenced with the Provider. The Complainant states that,

on further enquiry, he discovered that these proceedings were compromised by the Third-

Party Provider and subsequently discontinued in or about February 2012.

The Complainant states that when he asked the Provider why the Agreement was reported

to the CCR, he was informed by the Provider that under the Credit Reporting Act 2013,

which applied to hire purchase agreements from 30 June 2019, it was “under an obligation

to make such reports regarding hire purchase, PCP and other asset finance agreements.”

The Complainant submits that he made a formal complaint to the Provider by letter dated

4 March 2021. The Complainant further submits in this letter that the Provider was not

entitled to report the Agreement to the CCR for certain reasons, in particular the fact that

the agreement was terminated in 2009. The Complainant contends that the Provider failed

to respond to his complaint within the required 20 business days which is set out under

the Provider’s own complaints procedure.

The Complainant states that the Provider finally issued a Final Response Letter, (“the

FRL”), dated 10 May 2021, which outlines its position that:

“[The Provider does] not agree with [the Complainant’s] position that…the [A]greement

was terminated”.

In this complaint, the Complainant asserts that the Third-Party Provider:

“claimed and sought payment of all remaining payments due under the loan

agreement in … In order for [the Third-Party Provider] to issue proceedings, they

must have terminated the loan agreement beforehand. They would not have been

entitled to exercise their right to pursue the Complainant for all instalments payable

under the loan agreement unless and until they had terminated the loan agreement

beforehand. Accordingly, the agreement was terminated as it must necessarily have

been in order for proceedings to issue”.

The Complainant’s position is that the Finance Agreement was terminated by the

Provider’s predecessor and therefore should not have subsequently been reported by the

Provider to the CCR. More specifically, the Complainant relies on the wording of S.I No.

486/2016 – Credit Reporting Act 2013 (Section 11) (Provision of Information for Central

Credit Register) Regulations 2016: