Not upheld: Irresponsible lending complaint against Match the Cash Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5741463 of 2025-12-22T00:00:00+00:00. Irresponsible lending complaint against Match the Cash Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5741463 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-12-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Match the Cash Limited |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | Irresponsible lending |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr P complained that Match the Cash Limited irresponsibly lent him £5,000 in August 2024 by failing to conduct proper affordability checks that would have revealed his gambling activity. MTC responded that they completed full income and expenditure assessments, reviewed bank statements and credit reports, and found the loan affordable. The ombudsman found that MTC's checks were proportionate for a first loan and that Mr P had actively concealed his gambling through cash withdrawals and use of a separate account, providing plausible explanations when questioned. The complaint was not upheld as MTC could not reasonably have discovered the gambling activity.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the proportionality test for affordability checks, noting that for a first loan in a lending relationship, less thorough checks are generally reasonable. MTC conducted full income and expenditure assessments and requested statements from all accounts Mr P identified. Although Mr P was gambling, he actively concealed this through cash withdrawals and use of a separate account, and provided plausible explanations when questioned. The ombudsman concluded MTC could not reasonably have been aware of the gambling or factored it into their lending decision. Therefore, MTC did not lend irresponsibly.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Match the Cash Limited, all decisions | 33 | 48% |
| Irresponsible lending, all decisions | 29,406 | 38% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,762 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website