Not upheld: irresponsible lending / unfair credit relationship complaint against Oakbrook Finance Limited trading as Finio Loans

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs H complained that Oakbrook Finance Limited irresponsibly lent her five loans between 2015 and 2024, claiming they were unaffordable given her gambling problem. Oakbrook rejected the complaint, stating there was no evidence the loans were unaffordable. The ombudsman examined four loans within the FOS timeframe (loans two through five) and found that Oakbrook conducted reasonable affordability checks by verifying income, assessing costs, checking credit files, and calculating disposable income. Although Mrs H argued Oakbrook should have reviewed her bank statements to discover her gambling, the ombudsman concluded this was not necessary given the substantial estimated disposable income and absence of payment problems. The ombudsman found no evidence of irresponsible lending and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied FCA CONC rules requiring proportionate affordability checks. For each loan, Oakbrook verified income, assessed housing and living costs, checked credit files, and calculated disposable income. The ombudsman found these checks were reasonable and proportionate given the credit offered and Mrs H's financial profile. Although Mrs H argued Oakbrook should have reviewed bank statements to discover gambling, the ombudsman concluded this was not necessary given the information already gathered showed low external debt relative to income, no recent defaults, and no missed payments. The estimated disposable income at each stage was substantial enough to accommodate the loan repayments. The frequency of borrowing and increasing external debt were not concerning given Mrs H was primarily refinancing previous loans and only taking modest additional amounts. The ombudsman also considered whether the lending relationship was unfair under Section 140A but found no evidence of irresponsible lending or unfair treatment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website