Not upheld: loan administration, interest rate variation, loan modification terms, data handling, debt collection complaint against Prodigy Finance LTD
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6372522 of 2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00. loan administration, interest rate variation, loan modification terms, data handling, debt collection complaint against Prodigy Finance LTD. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6372522 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Prodigy Finance LTD |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | loan administration, interest rate variation, loan modification terms, data handling, debt collection |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No financial remedy ordered. Prodigy Finance was reminded of their responsibility to treat Mr C's current financial and personal circumstances with due consideration and forbearance, including working with him to arrange affordable repayments if he cannot make a lump sum payment. |
Summary
Mr C complained about Prodigy Finance's administration of two fixed sum loans taken out in 2016-2017 for educational purposes. The main issues were: (1) Prodigy Finance failed to adjust variable interest rates when the base rate changed, (2) Mr C claimed he was promised permanent repayment amounts after a 2021 loan modification, (3) documents were sent to his former address, and (4) the firm indicated they could use an overseas debt collection agency. The ombudsman found the loan terms always provided for variable interest rates, Prodigy Finance fairly compensated Mr C through manual adjustments, the address used was correct based on their records, and the firm was entitled to use a debt collection agency. The complaint was not upheld, though Prodigy Finance was reminded to work with Mr C on affordable repayments.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the loan terms and conditions clearly stated the interest rate would be variable depending on the base rate used by Prodigy Finance. Although an email mentioned a 'permanent reduction' of instalment payments, the subsequent modification terms mirrored the original variable interest calculation method. Mr C did not question this before agreeing to the modification. Prodigy Finance made manual adjustments to compensate for their error in not varying the rates, which was a fair settlement. The address used for correspondence was the one held on file, and Mr C bore responsibility for updating his address after moving. The loan terms permitted engagement with a debt collection agency given Mr C's failure to make required repayments.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Prodigy Finance LTD, all decisions | 11 | 9% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,070 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website