Not upheld: mis-selling complaint against Everyday Lending Limited, trading as Evlo
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6318545 of 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00. mis-selling complaint against Everyday Lending Limited, trading as Evlo. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6318545 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Everyday Lending Limited, trading as Evlo |
| Product | loan |
| Claim type | mis-selling |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. Complaint not upheld. |
Summary
Mr G complained that Evlo mis-sold him a £7,500 loan at 55.4% APR in January 2025, claiming he only took it to improve his credit score and felt pressured. The ombudsman reviewed call recordings and documents from the application process and found that while Mr G mentioned wanting to improve his credit score for a future mortgage, his original stated purpose was for a heating system for his mum. Evlo clearly explained the loan terms, interest rate, and repayment obligations both verbally and in writing, and there was no evidence of pressure or advice to take the loan solely for credit improvement. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Evlo provided clear information about the loan terms, interest rate, and repayment obligations both verbally and in writing. While Mr G mentioned wanting to improve his credit score, the original stated purpose was for a heating system, and Evlo's agent only explained in generic terms how paying off balances could help credit scores without advising Mr G to take the loan solely for this purpose. The interest rate of 55.4% APR was appropriate for a lender specialising in less-than-perfect credit and was clearly explained. There was no evidence of pressure on the calls, and Mr G had a 14-day cooling off period. The firm did not treat Mr G unfairly under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Everyday Lending Limited, trading as Evlo, all decisions | 7 | 43% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website