Not upheld: loan authorization and potential fraud/scam complaint against Propensio Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M, a vulnerable individual with complex medical needs and an LPA in place, took out a £5,800 fixed sum loan with Propensio to pay for insulation work carried out by a tradesperson. His family member A complained that Mr M did not understand or authorize the work or loan due to his personal circumstances and reported the matter to police as a potential scam. Propensio maintained that Mr M had authorized both the work and the loan. The ombudsman reviewed the signed invoice, loan agreement, before/after photographs, and a telephone call between Propensio and Mr M, and found on the balance of probabilities that Mr M had authorized the transaction. The complaint was not upheld, though the ombudsman reminded Propensio to treat Mr M's financial circumstances with forbearance.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard, finding that the documentary evidence (invoice, loan agreement, photographs) and the telephone call with Mr M outweighed A's testimony that Mr M did not understand the transaction. The ombudsman found no evidence that Mr M's email account was fraudulently accessed or that he did not understand the telephone call from Propensio. While acknowledging Mr M's vulnerabilities and A's concerns, the ombudsman concluded it was not unreasonable for Propensio to rely on the authorization evidence at the point of sale. The ombudsman noted that A's concerns about fraud and Propensio's relationship with X did not impact the individual circumstances of Mr M's case.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website