Not upheld: Irresponsible lending complaint against Propel Holdings (UK) Limited trading as Quidmarket

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Quidmarket irresponsibly lent him £300 in January 2026 without adequate affordability checks, citing his active CCJ, debt management plan, £27,000 indebtedness, and 68% revolving credit utilisation as indicators of financial distress. Quidmarket verified his income electronically at £3,250 monthly and obtained credit checks showing no defaults or CCJs, calculating he had £1,282 monthly disposable income. The ombudsman found the checks proportionate given the small loan amount, short 6-month term, and modest £97.74 monthly repayments, and that the credit information available did not reveal the CCJ or debt management plan Mr H later disclosed. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a proportionality test, considering that the loan was small (£300), short-term (6 months), with modest repayments (£97.74) relative to Mr H's declared income (£3,250). The ombudsman found Quidmarket's checks were proportionate given these circumstances and that the firm reasonably verified income electronically and obtained credit information. While Mr H's total indebtedness was substantial, most was a vehicle hire-purchase agreement (likely necessary for work), and his revolving credit utilisation at 68% was not concerning. The ombudsman rejected applying hindsight by criticising the credit search for not revealing information (CCJ and debt management plan) that was not available in the credit report data at the time. The ombudsman acknowledged that more forensic analysis of bank statements might have revealed Mr H's true financial position but found this level of checking was not proportionate given the loan's size and duration.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website