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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that Quidmarket lent him £600 in June 2025 without conducting sufficient affordability checks, pointing to five other payday loans taken shortly before, overdraft usage, seven outstanding loans, and evidence he used the proceeds to repay other credit. Quidmarket had verified Mr D's income of £3,100 per month, assessed his outgoings at £2,116 per month, and conducted a credit search showing no current financial difficulties. The ombudsman found the checks proportionate for a first loan and noted that recent loans had not yet appeared on the credit file, while historical defaults from 2020-2021 were sufficiently aged to warrant less weight. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied CONC 5.2A proportionality principles, finding that for a first loan, less thorough checks were proportionate. The ombudsman was satisfied that Quidmarket's checks—including income verification, expenditure assessment, and credit search—were commensurate with the loan amount. The credit search did not reveal current financial difficulties; the historical defaults were sufficiently aged (4+ years old) to warrant less weight; and the recent loans had not yet appeared on the credit file. The ombudsman rejected the argument that bank statements should have been obtained, finding this would have been disproportionate. The ombudsman also noted that another lender's settlement of a similar complaint does not set a binding precedent.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website