Not upheld: failure to provide suitable repayment plan; dispute over affordability of repayment terms complaint against Gain Credit LLC trading as Drafty

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Drafty failed to help him with a suitable repayment plan after his account was reworked following a previous upheld complaint about irresponsible lending. Drafty had agreed a repayment plan of £15 per month rising to £76 per month to clear the debt within two years, but Mr H proposed a £5 monthly plan which Drafty declined. The ombudsman found that Drafty engaged appropriately with Mr H, that the proposed £5 payment would have taken 23 years to repay and was a token payment under ICO guidelines, and that the offered repayment plan was reasonable. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Drafty engaged with Mr H in good faith to establish a suitable repayment plan. The £5 monthly proposal would have taken approximately 23 years to repay and would have adversely affected Mr H's credit file for that duration. Under ICO principles, Drafty was entitled to decline what it considered a token payment. The repayment plan offered by Drafty (£15 rising to £76 monthly) was reasonable in the circumstances, and Mr H bore responsibility for repaying the balance after interest and charges were removed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website