Not upheld: irresponsible lending - insufficient affordability checks complaint against PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED trading as Quidmarket

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained that Quidmarket lent him £300 irresponsibly without sufficient affordability checks. Mr T argued that Quidmarket should have discovered his unstable income, maxed-out credit cards, multiple recent loans, gambling issues, and council tax arrears. Quidmarket had conducted income verification, expenditure assessment, and credit searches, which showed Mr T could afford the £100 monthly repayments. The ombudsman found the checks were proportionate to the loan amount and that while historical defaults existed, they were five years old with no recent adverse information. The ombudsman rejected the argument that bank statements should have been obtained and noted that recent loans had not yet appeared on the credit report. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied CONC 5.2A requirements for proportionate affordability assessment. For a first loan of £300, less thorough checks were proportionate. The ombudsman found that Quidmarket's checks—including income verification through electronic cross-check, expenditure assessment, and credit search—were commensurate with the amount lent. While defaults existed on the credit file, they were recorded approximately five years prior with no significant adverse payment information suggesting ongoing difficulties, so Quidmarket was entitled to place less weight on them. The ombudsman rejected the argument that bank statements should have been obtained, finding this would have been disproportionate given the circumstances. The ombudsman also rejected the inference that the wife's upheld complaint should determine this outcome, noting that each complaint must be considered on its individual circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website