Upheld: irresponsible lending complaint against Loans 2 Go Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6282667 of 2026-05-05T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending complaint against Loans 2 Go Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6282667 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Loans 2 Go Limited |
| Product | personal loan |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Remove all interest and charges from the loan; treat all payments made as capital repayment; refund any overpayments with Bank of England base rate plus 1% simple interest; take sympathetic view on repayment plan for any remaining capital; remove adverse credit file information once capital is repaid |
Summary
Mr I complained that Loans 2 Go lent to him irresponsibly when he borrowed £2,000 in April 2024. Although Mr I initially made repayments, he later fell into arrears. The ombudsman found that while Loans 2 Go's affordability checks were proportionate, the firm failed to properly react to the results, which revealed Mr I had opened seven credit accounts in the previous year and would use over half his monthly income for credit repayments after the new loan. The ombudsman concluded the lender should have declined the application and upheld the complaint, directing removal of all interest and charges with refunds of overpayments plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While Loans 2 Go's affordability checks were proportionate in scope, the firm failed to react appropriately to the results. The checks revealed Mr I had greatly increased his credit reliance, opened multiple accounts recently, and would be committing over half his monthly income to credit repayments. This pattern indicated Mr I was likely borrowing to meet existing repayments unsustainably. The lender should have declined the application based on these findings rather than proceeding with the loan.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Loans 2 Go Limited, all decisions | 776 | 58% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website