Not upheld: irresponsible lending / unaffordable lending complaint against Propel Holdings (UK) Limited trading as Quidmarket
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6304386 of 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending / unaffordable lending complaint against Propel Holdings (UK) Limited trading as Quidmarket. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6304386 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Propel Holdings (UK) Limited trading as Quidmarket |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending / unaffordable lending |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. Quidmarket's existing offer to waive £217.23 in contractual interest remains available for Miss B to accept. The ombudsman encouraged Miss B to contact Quidmarket to discuss repayment arrangements and reminded Quidmarket of its responsibility to treat Miss B fairly and with forbearance. |
Summary
Miss B complained that Quidmarket irresponsibly lent her £600 in December 2023 without proper affordability checks, arguing the loan was unaffordable given her actual income of £1,700 monthly from PIP and Universal Credit (though Quidmarket's verification showed £2,158). Miss B, a vulnerable consumer with a long-term health condition, sought write-off of the remaining principal and removal of the default from her credit file. The ombudsman found Quidmarket conducted reasonable and proportionate checks appropriate for a modest first loan with short repayment term, reasonably relied on electronically verified income figures, and identified no serious financial concerns from credit checks that would warrant refusal. The complaint was not upheld, though Quidmarket's offer to waive £217.23 in interest remained available.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied a proportionality test to assess whether Quidmarket's checks were reasonable given the circumstances: a modest £600 loan, short three-month term, first loan with the firm, and apparent stable financial situation based on available information. While acknowledging that more forensic analysis would have revealed Miss B's actual lower income, the ombudsman found that cross-referencing declared income through credit reference agencies is an acceptable industry-standard practice. The loan repayments of £272.41 appeared affordable based on the £870 disposable income Quidmarket calculated. Credit checks showed no serious financial concerns warranting refusal. The ombudsman rejected arguments about vulnerability and Consumer Duty breach, finding Quidmarket had no notice of Miss B's vulnerability and that receiving disability benefits alone would not justify different treatment without further affordability assessment.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Propel Holdings (UK) Limited trading as Quidmarket, all decisions | 10 | 10% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 18,521 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website