Not upheld: irresponsible lending - affordability checks complaint against Loans 2 Go Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6296132 of 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending - affordability checks complaint against Loans 2 Go Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6296132 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Loans 2 Go Limited |
| Product | fixed sum loan |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending - affordability checks |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Loans 2 Go should refund the interest charged on loan four as previously offered in its final response letter, with the refund to be deducted from Ms Z's outstanding balance on loan six. |
Summary
Ms Z complained that Loans 2 Go irresponsibly lent to her across six loans between November 2021 and September 2024, arguing that inadequate affordability checks would have revealed the loans were unaffordable and that the loan durations were too long. Loans 2 Go upheld the complaint only for loan four. The ombudsman found that Loans 2 Go completed proportionate affordability checks for all loans, verified Ms Z's income, reviewed her credit history, and calculated that she would have sufficient disposable income to sustainably afford each loan. For loans one and two, no loss was suffered as they were repaid immediately. For loans three, five, and six, the ombudsman found fair lending decisions were made based on the information available. The ombudsman rejected the complaint about loan duration, noting Ms Z was aware of the terms and exercised her right to repay early on several occasions. The complaint was not upheld, except that Loans 2 Go should proceed with its previous offer to refund interest on loan four.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Loans 2 Go completed proportionate affordability checks for each loan, gathering sufficient information about income and credit commitments. For loans one and two, no loss was suffered as they were repaid immediately with no interest charged. For loan three, despite questionable living expense estimates, the firm established Ms Z had sufficient disposable income (£788 remaining) with no signs of financial difficulty. For loan five, the previous arrangement to pay had ended seven months prior and Ms Z's finances appeared well-managed since, with a reasonable monthly buffer of £329 remaining. For loan six, Ms Z's on-time repayment history on loan five and the consolidation purpose provided additional reassurance of affordability. The ombudsman rejected the complaint about loan duration, noting Ms Z was aware of the terms and had the option to repay early, which she exercised for several loans.
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