Not upheld: irresponsible lending and inadequate affordability checks complaint against PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED trading as Quidmarket
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6345362 of 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending and inadequate affordability checks complaint against PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED trading as Quidmarket. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6345362 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED trading as Quidmarket |
| Product | short-term loans |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending and inadequate affordability checks |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. Quidmarket's previous goodwill offer to waive interest on loan 5 (leaving £301.65 principal outstanding) was noted as potentially still available if Miss M wished to contact Quidmarket. |
Summary
Miss M complained that Quidmarket lent to her irresponsibly across five loans between March 2022 and December 2024 without conducting sufficient affordability checks, and that Quidmarket harassed her during a breathing space scheme. The ombudsman found that while Quidmarket should have conducted more thorough checks before approving the largest loan (loan 5 for £1,500), proportionate verification of her bank statements would have still shown the loan was affordable. For the other loans, the ombudsman concluded the checks were proportionate given the loan amounts, income levels, and lending history at each stage. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding no irresponsible lending, though noting Quidmarket's previous goodwill offer to waive interest on loan 5 remained potentially available.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied proportionality principles to assess whether Quidmarket's affordability checks were appropriate for each loan stage. For loans 1, 2, and 4, the ombudsman found the checks proportionate as they were early in lending chains or after breaks in borrowing. For loan 3, despite Miss M's concerns about multiple outstanding loans, the ombudsman concluded the credit commitments were correctly calculated (approximately £623 per month) and the loan appeared affordable. For loan 5, while the ombudsman agreed that further verification checks should have been conducted given Miss M's recent repayment difficulties and the loan's size, the ombudsman concluded that had Quidmarket conducted proportionate checks of Miss M's bank statements, it would have still reasonably concluded the loan was affordable. The ombudsman rejected line-by-line analysis of all transactions as disproportionate and focused on non-discretionary expenditure, finding Miss M appeared able to afford the repayments based on her income and regular outgoings.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED trading as Quidmarket, all decisions | 10 | 10% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website