Not upheld: irresponsible lending / inadequate affordability checks complaint against Bamboo Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6260198 of 2026-04-08T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending / inadequate affordability checks complaint against Bamboo Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6260198 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Bamboo Limited |
| Product | unsecured loan |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending / inadequate affordability checks |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. The ombudsman reminded Bamboo of their ongoing obligation to treat Mr C fairly and with forbearance. |
Summary
Mr C complained that Bamboo irresponsibly lent him £5,000 by failing to conduct adequate affordability checks, arguing his credit report and bank statements would have revealed financial difficulties and existing debt levels that made the loan unaffordable. Bamboo verified Mr C's income of £4,021 monthly and existing commitments totalling approximately £330 monthly, calculating he would have £1,700 disposable income after the new £223.50 loan repayment. The ombudsman found the affordability checks were proportionate, as CRA verification is reasonable for this lending type, and the absence of recent missed payments or defaults for nine months prior to application supported the loan's sustainability. The ombudsman rejected arguments that manual verification of payslips or bank statements was required, and found Bamboo could not reasonably have identified Mr C's undisclosed gambling vulnerability. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the FCA's Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC) requirements for reasonable and proportionate affordability assessments. The checks carried out by Bamboo were proportionate to the circumstances, as they verified income and debt using CRA data, which is reasonable for this type of lending. The absence of recent missed payments, defaults, or negative information for nine months prior to application, combined with calculated disposable income of £1,700 monthly, demonstrated the loan appeared sustainable. The ombudsman rejected arguments that further manual checks (payslips, bank statements) were required, as regulatory rules do not mandate specific documents in every case. The ombudsman also found Bamboo could not reasonably have identified Mr C's gambling vulnerability as he did not disclose it and there was no information suggesting it was brought to their attention.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Bamboo Limited, all decisions | 223 | 41% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website