Veste

Not upheld: irresponsible lending complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited (trading as Oodle Car Finance)

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6259202 of 2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited (trading as Oodle Car Finance). Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6259202
Decision date2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00
FirmOodle Financial Services Limited (trading as Oodle Car Finance)
ProductMotor finance (PCP / HP)
Claim typeirresponsible lending
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone - complaint not upheld

Summary

Ms P complained that Oodle lent irresponsibly when providing a £8,788 car finance loan in 2019 with monthly repayments of around £216. Ms P had a recent default and missed payment, along with existing unsecured debt of £16,000. The ombudsman agreed that Oodle should have undertaken further checks beyond its initial affordability assessment, but found that proportionate checks using Ms P's bank statements would have revealed sufficient disposable income to support the repayments. With only a modest monthly increase of £16 and no evidence of financial difficulty, the ombudsman concluded the lending was not irresponsible and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed that Oodle should have undertaken further checks given the recent default and missed payment in Ms P's credit history. However, when performing a proportionate affordability assessment using Ms P's bank statements, the ombudsman found sufficient disposable income remained after accounting for committed expenditure and the modest monthly increase of around £16 for the new loan. The ombudsman concluded that had Oodle performed proportionate checks, it would likely have reached the same conclusion that the repayments were affordable and sustainable.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Oodle Financial Services Limited (trading as Oodle Car Finance), all decisions1924%
Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions18,52138%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website