Not upheld: irresponsible lending complaint against Savvy Loan Products Limited trading as Tick Tock Loans
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6221430 of 2026-04-02T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending complaint against Savvy Loan Products Limited trading as Tick Tock Loans. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6221430 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Savvy Loan Products Limited trading as Tick Tock Loans |
| Product | short-term loan |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr D complained that Savvy lent to him irresponsibly by providing two short-term loans (£400 and £300) when he was reliant on continued borrowing rather than genuine disposable income. Savvy verified Mr D's income at £3,000-£3,100 monthly and conducted detailed credit checks showing manageable debt levels and positive recent repayment records, despite historic defaults from 2019-2021. The ombudsman found Savvy's checks were reasonable and proportionate, and there was nothing to suggest Mr D could not sustainably repay the loans. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found Savvy's checks were reasonable and proportionate for short-term loans of £400 and £300. The use of statistical data to augment applicant figures is appropriate under regulatory provisions. Mr D's credit history, while showing past defaults from 2019-2021, was sufficiently historic and he was managing recent credit satisfactorily with no repayment issues. His debt-to-income ratio and credit utilisation were manageable. The regulatory framework does not require lenders to investigate beyond what applicants disclose early in a lending relationship for small short-term loans. There was nothing in the information gathered to suggest Mr D could not sustainably repay.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Savvy Loan Products Limited trading as Tick Tock Loans, all decisions | 3 | 33% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website