Upheld: irresponsible lending complaint against Inclusive Finance Limited trading as Creditspring
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6276127 of 2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending complaint against Inclusive Finance Limited trading as Creditspring. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6276127 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Inclusive Finance Limited trading as Creditspring |
| Product | loan |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Creditspring must: (1) calculate total payments made by Mrs C and deduct from total loans received; (2) if Mrs C overpaid, refund overpayments plus 8% simple interest from date of overpayment and remove adverse credit file information; (3) if capital balance remains, arrange an affordable repayment plan and remove adverse credit file information once cleared; (4) if debt sold to third party, buy back debt or ensure third party implements redress; (5) provide tax certificate if requested. |
Summary
Mrs C complained that Creditspring lent to her irresponsibly by providing two £600 loans in June 2023 and June 2024. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Creditspring failed to conduct reasonable and proportionate affordability assessments. For the first loan, the credit check revealed Mrs C had high credit card utilisation (96-100%) across multiple accounts and a recent default of £400, indicating financial difficulty that warranted further investigation. For the second loan, Mrs C had expanded to 15 loan accounts with similarly high utilisation and was experiencing returned direct debit payments, yet Creditspring relied solely on self-declared income without verifying her actual committed expenditure. The ombudsman directed Creditspring to refund charges and interest paid, arrange affordable repayment for any remaining capital, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Creditspring failed to conduct reasonable and proportionate affordability assessments as required by regulations. For the first loan, the credit check itself revealed Mrs C was in financial difficulty with high credit card utilisation and a recent default, warranting further investigation before lending. For the second loan, while the default was more historical, Mrs C's expanded number of loan accounts and high utilisation, combined with returned direct debit payments, indicated she was struggling to manage her commitments. Creditspring's reliance solely on self-declared income without verifying committed expenditure was insufficient. Analysis of bank statements would have shown Mrs C had minimal disposable income with no buffer for unexpected expenses.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusive Finance Limited trading as Creditspring, all decisions | 10 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website