Not upheld: irresponsible lending complaint against PDL Finance Limited trading as Mr Lender

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that Mr Lender irresponsibly lent him £300 in August 2020 when he was in a Debt Management Plan and suffering from a gambling addiction. Mr Lender rejected the complaint, stating they had asked about gambling addiction (which Mr R denied) and conducted proportionate checks based on available data. The FOS Investigator and Ombudsman agreed with Mr Lender, finding that the affordability checks were proportionate given the modest loan amount, Mr R's stated income of £1,800 per month, good credit file, and demonstrated disposable income. The ombudsman noted that Mr R's DMP status was not yet reflected on his credit file and that lenders have no obligation to obtain full bank statements. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the regulatory requirement for proportionate, borrower-focused affordability assessments. Given the modest loan amount of £300, Mr R's stated salary of £1,800 per month, absence of other short-term lending, good credit file, and demonstrated disposable income, the checks carried out were proportionate. The ombudsman found no obligation for lenders to obtain full bank statements and noted that Mr R's DMP status was not evident on his credit file at the time of application. The gambling addiction was not apparent from the credit data obtained, and Mr R had denied having one when asked. Therefore, there was nothing to suggest the loan would be unaffordable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website