Not upheld: Irresponsible lending complaint against Inclusive Finance Limited trading as Creditspring

Decision detail

Summary

Miss A complained that Creditspring irresponsibly lent to her in February 2022 when she applied for a membership agreement allowing two £250 loan advances with repayments of approximately £49.66-£49.70 monthly. Miss A later disclosed in March 2026 that she had a gambling problem at the time and claimed that Creditspring failed to conduct adequate checks that would have revealed her financial difficulties. The ombudsman found that Creditspring conducted reasonable and proportionate checks by verifying Miss A's declared income of £3,200 through a credit reference agency, assessing her expenditure at approximately £1,493 monthly, and reviewing credit search results showing three existing accounts with no recent defaults. Given the small loan size, modest repayments relative to declared income, and this being the first loan in the relationship, the ombudsman concluded a less detailed affordability assessment was proportionate. The ombudsman rejected Miss A's argument that bank statement analysis would have revealed gambling activity, finding that Creditspring had no reasonable cause to suspect this and was not obliged to conduct such forensic checks. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a proportionality test to the checks conducted. Given the small loan amount (£500), modest weekly repayments relative to declared income, and this being the first loan in the relationship, a less detailed affordability assessment was reasonable. Creditspring properly verified income through a credit reference agency and gathered expenditure information including existing credit commitments. The resulting calculation showed substantial disposable income of £1,707 monthly. While Miss A's bank statements may have revealed gambling activity and financial strain, the ombudsman concluded it was not unreasonable or disproportionate for Creditspring to rely on the information it had gathered rather than conduct more forensic analysis. The historic default was appropriately discounted as being 25 months old. The ombudsman found no evidence that Creditspring knew or should reasonably have known about Miss A's gambling problem, as further checks would have been the only way to discover this, and such checks were not proportionate given the circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website