Not upheld: irresponsible lending / inadequate affordability checks complaint against Propel Holdings (UK) Limited trading as Quidmarket

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M complained that Quidmarket irresponsibly lent her £600 in November 2024 without conducting adequate creditworthiness and affordability checks. Quidmarket verified her income at £4,193 monthly, obtained credit checks and a bank statement, and calculated she had £1,682 in monthly disposable income after expenses. The ombudsman found the checks were reasonable and proportionate for a small, short-term loan and that Quidmarket reasonably relied on the information gathered to conclude the loan was affordable. Although Miss M subsequently experienced ill-health reducing her income, the ombudsman held Quidmarket could not have anticipated this change and was not required to conduct more forensic analysis. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FOS approach to irresponsible lending, considering whether Quidmarket carried out reasonable and proportionate checks and whether it lent responsibly using the information gathered. The ombudsman found that for a relatively small, short-term loan with substantial monthly disposable income (£1,682), proportionate checks were appropriate. Quidmarket verified income, obtained credit checks, reviewed a bank statement, and adjusted expenditure estimates upfront. While Miss M's credit file showed recent new borrowing, her existing commitments appeared manageable and the loan repayments were affordable relative to her income. The ombudsman rejected arguments that more forensic analysis was required, noting that Quidmarket was entitled to rely on the information gathered and had no reason to anticipate Miss M's subsequent ill-health and income reduction.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website