Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Black Horse Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6415417 of 2026-07-01T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Black Horse Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6415417 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-07-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Black Horse Limited |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None - no remedy ordered as complaint not upheld. |
Summary
Mr P complained that Black Horse Limited treated him unfairly when managing his account after a temporary repayment arrangement failed, claiming the firm did not adequately account for his vulnerability and stated preference for written communication, and failed to engage with his proposals to resolve arrears. Black Horse maintained it completed proper affordability assessments, noted his communication preference, and took reasonable steps to contact him about the outstanding balance. The ombudsman found that Black Horse's actions were fair and reasonable, as the firm had conducted appropriate assessments, was aware of Mr P's circumstances, and was entitled to contact him regarding arrears, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Black Horse carried out proper affordability assessment before agreeing the temporary arrangement and was entitled to contact Mr P when payments were not maintained. Although Black Horse was aware of Mr P's vulnerability and communication preference, the evidence did not show that the firm failed to make reasonable adjustments or that its overall communication approach was unfair and unreasonable. The contact attempts, viewed as a whole, were reasonable given the account remained in arrears.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Black Horse Limited, all decisions | 1,462 | 27% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 34,229 | 32% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,885 | 29% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website