Veste

Not upheld: Irresponsible lending complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Zable

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6462367 of 2026-07-06T00:00:00+00:00. Irresponsible lending complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Zable. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6462367
Decision date2026-07-06T00:00:00+00:00
FirmLendable Ltd trading as Zable
ProductCredit card
Claim typeIrresponsible lending
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo remedy ordered. The ombudsman is not asking Zable to do anything to put things right.

Summary

Mr C complained that Lendable Ltd trading as Zable provided him with a credit card irresponsibly in August 2022 with a £350 credit limit. Zable had conducted a credit check, verified Mr C's net monthly income of £2,017, and inquired about his housing costs of £100 per month. The ombudsman found that Zable's pre-lending checks were reasonable and proportionate given the modest credit limit, and that Mr C's recent credit data and verified income indicated he could sustainably repay the debt. Although Mr C had historic financial issues, these were not recent enough to warrant further investigation. The complaint was not upheld, and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Zable's pre-lending checks were reasonable and proportionate given the modest £350 credit limit. Mr C's verified income of £2,017 per month, after deducting declared rent of £100 and existing credit commitments, left reasonable disposable income. His recent credit data showed no concerns, and while he had historic financial issues, these were not recent enough to warrant further investigation. There was nothing in the information gathered to suggest Mr C would be unable to sustainably repay the credit. The ombudsman also considered the relationship under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but found no unfairness.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Lendable Ltd trading as Zable, all decisions173%
Irresponsible lending, all decisions30,77037%
Credit card, all decisions26,11722%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website