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

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S complained that Quidmarket lent to her irresponsibly across three loans (£600 in December 2022, £850 in March 2023, and £1,500 in September 2025). She argued that Quidmarket should have conducted more thorough checks given her financial pressure and that relying solely on her declared information was insufficient. The ombudsman found that Quidmarket carried out proportionate checks appropriate to each lending stage, verified income through employer records and child benefit, and obtained credit reference agency searches. Although Mrs S had some adverse credit history (two defaulted credit cards from February 2024 and one delinquent bank loan), these were being actively managed with regular repayments. Even accounting for undisclosed housing costs of £457 monthly, Mrs S would have retained over £1,000 monthly disposable income for Loan 3. The ombudsman concluded that Quidmarket did not lend irresponsibly and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FOS approach to proportionate lending checks, considering that checks can be less thorough in early lending stages but should be more thorough if income is low, amounts lent are high, or credit history is impaired. For Loans 1 and 2, the ombudsman found no adverse credit data, satisfactory disposable income, and proportionate checks appropriate for early-stage lending. For Loan 3, although there was adverse credit data (two defaulted accounts and one delinquent account), these were being actively managed by Mrs S and were historic or in arrangement. The ombudsman found that even if Quidmarket had discovered the £457 monthly housing payment, Mrs S would still have had over £1,000 monthly disposable income to service the £479 monthly loan repayment. The ombudsman concluded that the regulatory framework does not require lenders to discover information beyond what borrowers declare unless proportionate checks indicate the need for further investigation, and that Quidmarket's checks were proportionate given the circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website