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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that Quidmarket lent him £500 and £1,000 without sufficient affordability checks, arguing that better checks would have revealed his reliance on short-term loans and gambling. Quidmarket conducted income verification, credit searches, and expenditure assessments which showed Mr C could afford the repayments and revealed no financial difficulties. The ombudsman found the checks were proportionate to the circumstances of early-stage lending with only two loans, and that Quidmarket was entitled to rely on the credit search results which showed no adverse information. The complaint was not upheld as Quidmarket had no obligation to review bank statements and could not have discovered the gambling through proportionate checks.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the proportionality test under CONC 5.2A, finding that for early-stage lending with only two loans, Quidmarket's checks were proportionate to the circumstances. The ombudsman accepted that Quidmarket did not merely rely on Mr C's declarations but electronically verified his income and conducted credit searches. The credit search results available to Quidmarket showed no signs of financial difficulties. The ombudsman found that bank statement review would have been disproportionate given the amounts lent and information available, and therefore Quidmarket could not have known about gambling. The presence of other payday loans visible in the credit results, combined with the affordability calculations showing Mr C could afford the repayments, was insufficient to trigger a requirement for further checks.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website