DRN-6215162

The complaint Miss B complains that PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED trading as Quidmarket (Quidmarket) gave her a loan without carrying out sufficient affordability checks. What happened Miss B was granted one instalment loan in October 2025 for £1,000. Miss B was due to make six monthly payments of £333.33. Based on the latest information I have, an outstanding balance remains due. Following Miss B’s complaint, Quidmarket explained why it had carried out proportionate checks. The complaint was then referred to the Financial Ombudsman, and it was reviewed by an Investigator. Who upheld the complaint saying Miss B’s credit check results showed she had some recent difficulties which Quidmarket knew about this and shouldn’t have lent. Miss B agreed with the Investigator’s findings, but Quidmarket didn’t agree and said in summary; • The account the Investigator highlighted as being in an arrangement to pay showed no arrears markers. And this isn’t enough to uphold the complaint. • The telecoms account was reporting as late but hadn’t yet reached delinquency. Miss B also said she wasn’t in difficulties so the account may have been brought up to date. • Quidmarket will lend to consumers who may not have perfect credit history. As no agreement could be reached the complaint has been passed to an me, an Ombudsman for a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. We’ve set out our general approach to complaints about short-term lending - including all the relevant rules, guidance and good industry practice - on our website. The basis for what I go on to discuss below is laid out in CONC 5.2A and Quidmarket had to assess the lending to check if Miss B could afford to pay back the amount she’d borrowed without undue difficulty. It needed to do this in a way which was proportionate to the circumstances. Quidmarket’s checks could have taken into account a number of different things, such as how much was being lent, the size of the repayments, and Miss B’s income and expenditure. With this in mind, I think in the early stages of a lending relationship, less thorough checks might have been proportionate. But certain factors might suggest Quidmarket should have done more to establish that any lending was sustainable for Miss B. These factors include:

-- 1 of 4 --

• Miss B having a low income (reflecting that it could be more difficult to make any loan repayments to a given loan amount from a lower level of income); • The amounts to be repaid being especially high (reflecting that it could be more difficult to meet a higher repayment from a particular level of income); • Miss B having large number of loans and/or having these loans over a long period of time (reflecting the risk that repeated refinancing may signal that the borrowing had become, or was becoming, unsustainable); • Miss B coming back for loans shortly after previous borrowing had been repaid (also suggestive of the borrowing becoming unsustainable). There may even come a point where the lending history and pattern of lending itself clearly, demonstrates that the lending was unsustainable for Miss B. But this doesn’t apply in Miss B’s complaint because only one loan was granted. Quidmarket was required to establish whether Miss B could sustainably repay the loan – not just whether she technically had enough money to make her repayments. Having enough money to make the repayments could of course be an indicator that Miss B was able to repay the loan sustainably. But it doesn’t automatically follow that this is the case. Quidmarket asked Miss B about her income and expenditure details. Miss B declared she received a monthly salary of £2,300 per month. Quidmarket says this income was electronically cross checked and it didn’t make any adjustments, indicating it was content to rely on what it was told. I’m satisfied Quidmarket didn’t just rely on Miss B’s declaration for its affordability assessment and for a first loan this is a proportionate check. In terms of outgoings – which included existing credit commitments, Miss B declared these came to £340 per month. However, Quidmarket made checks into Miss B’s outgoings including her credit commitments and it increased the amount it thought Miss B spent each month. Based on its calculations, Quidmarket believed Miss B’s total outgoings came to £1,367. The loan still appeared affordable. Although, I would add that part of Miss B’s application included that she had declared she had zero credit commitments, and Quidmarket established from the credit search results that Miss B’s costs were likely around £947 per month. Of course, with the Quidmarket loan added on time than Miss B would be spending the majority of her income solely on credit commitments. Which, with the reasons set out below, is a further one as to why this loan wasn’t sustainable for her. A credit search was also carried out and Quidmarket has provided a copy of the results it received. It’s worth saying here that there was and is no requirement for Quidmarket to do a credit search nor is there any set standard it has to adhere to. I’ve therefore looked at these to see if there was anything contained within the results which ought to have either led Quidmarket to have conducted further checks and or decline the application. It's fair to say that superficially that Miss B at least appeared to not have any difficulties, there were no defaults, insolvencies or County Court Judgments. I also think it’s fair to say that Miss B didn’t have a great deal of debt overall – just over £3,200. However, Quidmarket did know that Miss B was having problems managing her existing commitments as I’ve set out below. • A telecoms account was three months in arrears – and those arrears had built each month in the last three months. Indicating that Miss B hadn’t made her payments as

-- 2 of 4 --

expected for a number of months. I’ve considered that Quidmarket has said that the account may well have been brought up to date – there is nothing to suggest that happened, indeed, it's more likely, given the recent payment performance that the account to have slipped further into arrears. • A loan account which had started in July 2025 had been marked up as being in a payment arrangement. I appreciate, that apart from the arrangement to pay there were no other arrears markers, but that doesn’t mean a payment arrangement couldn’t be entered into. I think Quidmarket ought to have taken this information at face value unless it had something else to suggest it was inaccurate. • Although no negative information had been reported, a credit card had been over its credit limit each month for the last five months. • With the granting of this loan, Miss B would’ve had three active payday loans and was spending a significant amount of her income each month just servicing debt. • Miss B had opened five accounts within the last six months, an indicator that perhaps she was reliant on taking further credit when this loan was approved. I do think this information was enough for Quidmarket to conclude this loan shouldn’t have been lent because Miss B was likely having current financial difficulties given the recent missed payments and the repayment plan that had been agreed with another loan provider. I’ve noted what Quidmarket has said that it will lend to people with some adverse payment information. But the credit file data was showing that Miss B was struggling to meet her existing creditors so I am not sure why – knowing this is would’ve felt Miss B could afford to take on further credit. I think Quidmarket had enough information which meant Miss B was unlikely to be able to afford the payments to this loan, without undue difficulty. It therefore follows that Miss B is currently expected to pay interest, fees and charges on a loan that she shouldn’t have had. So, I’m satisfied that Miss B has lost out and Quidmarket should put things right for him as set out below. I’ve also considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under Section.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, I’m satisfied the redress I have directed below results in fair compensation for Miss B in the circumstances of her complaint. I’m satisfied, based on what I’ve seen, that no additional award would be appropriate in this case. Putting things right Quidmarket ought to not have approved this loan. A. Remove all interest, fees and charges from the balance of the loan, and treat any repayments made by Miss B as though they had been repayments of the principal. If this results in Miss B having made overpayments, then these should be refunded with simple interest using a time-weighted average of the Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point on the loss. The interest should be paid from the date the overpayments were made to the date of settlement. B. However, if there is still an outstanding balance then Quidmarket should try to agree an affordable repayment plan with Miss B. C. Remove any adverse information recorded on Miss B’s credit file in relation to the loan. *HM Revenue & Customs requires Quidmarket to deduct tax from this interest. It should give Miss B a certificate showing how much tax it has deducted, if she asks for one.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision For the reasons I’ve outlined above, I upholding Miss B’s complaint. PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED trading as Quidmarket should put things right as directed above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss B to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Robert Walker Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --