Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against Salary Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss D complained that SFL took a £370.23 payment on 30 May 2025 after she had paid a loan settlement figure of £12,200.42 on 14 May, which she claimed she did not authorise. SFL's settlement letter explicitly stated that the settlement figure was calculated on the basis that the 30 May scheduled payment would be taken and was included in the overall settlement amount. The ombudsman found that the 30 May payment was not an additional unauthorised payment but was integral to the settlement, and that Miss D had authorised it when accepting the loan. The complaint was not upheld as SFL had clearly communicated the settlement terms and had not acted unfairly.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that the 30 May payment was not an additional unauthorised payment but was integral to the settlement calculation. The settlement letter clearly stated that the £12,200.42 figure was calculated with the understanding that the 30 May payment would be taken, and this was explicitly communicated to Miss D. The ombudsman found that Miss D had authorised the payment when accepting the loan terms, and the settlement she complied with included this payment. The ombudsman concluded that any dissatisfaction resulted from Miss D's misunderstanding of the settlement terms rather than unfair action by SFL.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website