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

Decision detail

Summary

Miss B complained that Quidmarket lent her four short-term loans she could not afford to repay. Quidmarket and the FOS Investigator did not uphold the complaint. The ombudsman reviewed all four loans and found that Quidmarket conducted proportionate affordability checks for each, including income verification using industry tools, uplifting of declared outgoings based on living circumstances, and credit searches showing no adverse indicators. A 9-month break between loans 2 and 3 was treated as resetting the lending chain. The ombudsman concluded that the checks demonstrated Miss B had sufficient disposable income to afford the repayments and therefore did not uphold the complaint, though it reminded Quidmarket to treat Miss B fairly regarding the outstanding balance on loan 4.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FOS approach to short-term lending complaints, requiring proportionate affordability checks. For loans 1-2, the ombudsman found the checks proportionate given the early stage of the lending relationship. Quidmarket verified Miss B's income using an industry tool, uplifted her declared outgoings based on information provided, and conducted credit searches showing no adverse indicators. For loans 3-4, the ombudsman found a sufficient 9-month break in borrowing to reset the lending chain, treating loan 3 as the start of a new relationship. The same proportionate checks were applied and showed Miss B had sufficient disposable income to afford repayments. Credit searches remained clear of adverse information. The ombudsman concluded that Quidmarket was not required to verify information more closely or obtain bank statements, as the proportionate checks demonstrated affordability.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website