Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Zable

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that Zable sent him unsolicited marketing in November 2025 despite his November 2024 right to erasure request and a previous upheld FOS complaint regarding similar communications in February-March 2025. The November 2025 contact was sent to a different email address Mr W claims he never provided to Zable. Zable upheld the complaint, acknowledged the failure to suppress the different email address, and offered £200 compensation plus process improvements. The ombudsman found the £200 offer fair and reasonable, recognizing the compounded distress from the repeat breach but declining to award additional compensation or punitive measures, as FOS awards are remedial rather than punitive and regulatory oversight is the FCA's responsibility.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Zable failed to properly suppress the different email address, the £200 compensation offered was fair and reasonable. The ombudsman acknowledged this was not an isolated incident given the previous complaint, which would increase distress. However, the ombudsman clarified that FOS awards are designed to compensate for distress and inconvenience caused by wrongful acts, not to punish businesses or drive regulatory change—that is the FCA's role. The ombudsman could not reconsider the previous final decision or award the previously rejected £125 compensation. Zable's process improvements (reviewing data-matching protocols and providing staff training) were noted but did not justify a higher award.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website