Partially upheld: irresponsible lending complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Lendable
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6423552 of 2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Lendable. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6423552 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-12T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Lendable Ltd trading as Lendable |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Remove all interest and charges on the second loan; treat all payments made as capital repayment only; refund any overpayments with simple interest at Bank of England base rate + 1% from date overpayments arose; if capital remains outstanding, Lendable should take sympathetic view on affordable repayment plan; remove adverse credit file information once loan fully repaid |
Summary
Mr E complained that Lendable lent to him irresponsibly. Lendable provided two loans: £1,500 in August 2024 (fully repaid) and £2,500 in July 2025. The ombudsman found the first loan was responsibly lent based on proportionate checks showing adequate disposable income and only minor gambling activity. However, the second loan was irresponsibly lent because Mr E's gambling spending had escalated to over £680 in the month before application, exceeding the calculated disposable income of just over £500, meaning repayment was dependent on chance rather than sustainable income. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part and directed Lendable to remove all interest and charges on the second loan, refund overpayments with interest, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While Lendable's affordability checks were proportionate in scope and methodology, the firm failed to react appropriately to the information those checks revealed. The dramatic escalation in gambling spending from the first to second loan application, combined with the fact that this spending exceeded the calculated disposable income, should have raised serious concerns. Lendable could not reasonably have confidence that the gambling spending would not be repeated or exceeded, meaning the assessment of affordability was based on chance rather than sustainable repayment capacity. Therefore, the second loan should not have been agreed.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Lendable Ltd trading as Lendable, all decisions | 1 | 50% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,070 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website