DRN-6221821

The complaint Zopa Bank Limited provided Miss P with a loan of £20,000 in July 2025. With the help of a professional representative (PR), Miss P complains that the loan was granted irresponsibly. For ease, I’ll refer to the actions of the PR as being those of Miss P. What happened The details of this complaint are well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here. The facts aren’t in dispute, so I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my 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 unaffordable or irresponsible lending on our website, and I’ve taken this into account in deciding Miss P’s case. I’ve decided the loan was provided fairly because: • I think the checks Zopa did before providing the loan were reasonable and proportionate based on what Miss P told it about her circumstances, and what it found out itself about her financial situation. • When she applied for the loan, Miss P told Zopa she was employed full time and earned £80,000 per year (£4,550 per month). She said she owned her own home with no mortgage, and the loan was for home improvements. Zopa checked Miss P’s credit file and saw she had a hire purchase agreement (likely to be car finance) for £19,769 (£166 per month), and she paid insurance by monthly instalments of £53. She had a credit card with a balance of around £2,300, and £250 in other unsecured borrowing. It also discovered she did in fact have a mortgage with a monthly payment of £1,484. All payments were up to date. I don’t think this ought to have made Zopa think Miss P was overindebted or in any particular difficulties. Zopa used that information as well as information provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to calculate Miss P’s likely expenditure. It was confident that she has sufficient monthly disposable income to comfortably afford the repayments to this loan of £520.43. • I would expect Zopa to have taken steps to verify Miss P’s income given the size of this loan. Zopa says it did so using an online tool provided by a credit reference agency. But Miss P’s PR says it should have considered her bank statements or payslips to do so.

-- 1 of 2 --

There is no obligation on lenders to check payslips or bank statements. But it’s clear from the information provided by Miss P, that if Zopa had asked for more information to support her declaration of income, she would have been able to provide it. So if it had asked the question and not relied on the online tools, Miss P’s income would still have been verified as accurate and the situation she now finds herself in would be no different. • Based on the information Zopa gathered and what Miss P told it about her circumstances, there was nothing to suggest she was likely to be unable to sustainably repay what she was being lent. • I’ve not seen anything to suggest that Zopa acted unfairly in any other way. This means I don’t think Zopa did anything wrong when it provided the loan to Miss P. I’ve also considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.140). However, for the reasons I’ve already given, I don’t think Zopa lent to Miss P irresponsibly or otherwise treated her unfairly. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that s.140A or anything else would, given the facts of this complaint, lead to a different outcome here. I know this isn’t the outcome Miss P hoped for and I’m sorry to disappoint her. But for the reasons above, I’m not asking Zopa to do anything to put things right. My final decision My final decision is that I’m not upholding Miss P’s complaint about Zopa Bank Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss P to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Richard Hale Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --