Harvey & Thompson Limited · DRN-6011340

The complaint Mr S complains that Harvey & Thompson Limited trading as H&T Pawnbrokers (“H&T”) charged him an unfair amount of interest and rejected his payment proposal. What happened Mr S entered into several pledge loan agreements with H&T. In September 2024 Mr S experienced financial difficulties. He asked H&T to freeze interest under the agreements to give him the opportunity to repay the loan at £500 per month and get the items back. H&T agreed to hold the items but refused to freeze interest or accept the payment proposal. Mr S complained to H&T. H&T didn’t uphold the complaint. In its final response dated 11 June 2025 it said it had agreed to hold all of Mr S’s open pledges until 14 October 2025 with interest bearing. It said the 4 pledges that were forfeited and were sent to auction in January 2025 would be returned to the store as a gesture of goodwill and would be available for Mr S to re-purchase until 14 October 2025. H&T issued a further final response on 12 November 2025. It said that due to the total amount owed by Mr S on the pledge loans, it would take around 8 years to clear the balance if Mr S’s payment offer of £500 per month was accepted. H&T said it had declined Mr S’s offer but had advised him that it could accept £500 per month if it applied to only some of the pledges. H&T noted that Mr S had rejected this option. H&T said it had offered a 24 month repayment plan to Mr S but he had rejected this as being unaffordable. H&T said it had taken Mr S’s circumstances into account and had shown forbearance but none of the options it had offered had been accepted by Mr S. H&T said that Mr S had paid interest of £8337.85 against his current outstanding pledges and not the £30,000 interest which he had referred to in his complaint. Mr S remained unhappy and brought his complaint to this service. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They said that the amount required to be repaid was clearly set out in the loan agreements and that H&T had acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreements. Mr S didn’t agree so I’ve been asked to review the complaint. 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. I know it will disappoint Mr S but I agree with the investigator’s opinion. I’ll explain why. I’ve reviewed the terms and conditions of the agreements that Mr S has entered into. Each agreement sets out the term of the loan, which is 6 months, the amount needed to repay the loan and the interest rate. Mr S has signed the agreements to say that he has read and understood the terms and

-- 1 of 2 --

conditions. It may be helpful if I explain how the loan – known as a pledge loan – works. A customer pledges an item with H&T and money is lent to the customer against the value of the item. If the customer is unable to repay the loan and interest at the end of the 6 months and a 30 day grace period, the item is sent to auction. At this point, the loan is wiped and the customer isn’t liable to pay anything, even if the item doesn’t achieve the reserve price at auction. The reserve price at auction is set at the amount of the outstanding loan plus interest. All of this information is set out in the loan agreement which Mr S signed. I’m aware that Mr S has had several loan pledge agreements with H&T since 2018, so I’m satisfied that he understands how these loans work. I appreciate that Mr S’s circumstances have changed since he took out the loans. I also understand that the items are of sentimental value and that Mr S would like to retain them. I can see that Mr S made a payment proposal to H&T based on interest being frozen. I’ve thought about Mr S’s proposal and about whether H&T have treated Mr S fairly. There’s no obligation on H&T to freeze interest and had it accepted Mr S’s proposal, it would have taken around 8 years for Mr S to repay the loans before he could take back ownership of the items he’d pledged. I don’t think it was unfair of H&T to decline a payment proposal which would’ve left Mr S in long term debt. I can see that H&T put alternative options to Mr S in an attempt to give him the opportunity to retain some of his items. However, based on what I’ve seen, payments of more than £500 per month are unaffordable for Mr S. In the circumstances, I think H&T did as much as it could to show forbearance whilst acting responsibly and not putting Mr S in an arrangement that he couldn’t afford. In relation to the interest charges, which Mr S says are unfair, the rate of interest is set out in the pledge loan agreements. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that H&T has charged interest incorrectly. I’m sorry to hear about Mr S’s difficulties and I do understand how distressing this situation must be given that the pledged items are of sentimental value to Mr S and /or his family. However, for the reasons I’ve explained above, I’m unable to say that H&T has made an error or treated Mr S unfairly. I won’t be asking H&T to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Emma Davy Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --