DRN-6253671

The complaint OAKBROOK FINANCE LIMITED provided Miss M with two loans. Oakbrook Finance upheld Miss M’s complaint in regard to the first loan provided in April 2025. This complaint is about the second loan provided in November 2025. Miss M says the credit was provided irresponsibly. 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 M’s case. Oakbrook Finance upheld Miss M’s complaint in regard to the first loan provided in April 2025. It provided redress in line with what we would expect and Miss M accepted this. This decision relates to the second loan provided in November 2025 for £4,797.48. I’ve decided the credit was provided fairly because: • I think the checks Oakbrook Finance did before providing the credit were reasonable and proportionate given the credit limit it offered and what it knew about Miss M’s financial situation. • Oakbrook Finance’s checks showed that Miss M was employed with a net monthly income of £2,000. This amount was verified using current account turnover data. Miss M had total outstanding debt of £11,400 which included Miss M’s first Oakbrook Finance loan (£4,840) which was being settled by this loan. Her repayments for her existing credit commitments were around £374 a month. Considering Miss M’s existing credit commitments compared to her income, I do not think this showed Miss M to be overindebted. I note Miss M’s comment about her taking out two loans with Oakbrook Finance and a loan with another provider within a short space of time, but the second Oakbrook Finance loan repaid the first and considering the overall level of credit, I do not think this was such that the second Oakbrook Finance loan shouldn’t have been issued. • Miss M had a historic default recorded 68 months prior to the application. There were no county court judgments or bankruptcies identified, and Miss M was up to date with her active accounts. There were no missed payments recorded within the previous six months. I do not think the results of Miss M’s credit check meant that further questions were needed or that they raised issues than meant the loan shouldn’t be given.

-- 1 of 2 --

• Miss M was asked about her housing costs and living expenses and the declared amounts were assessed against third party estimates, with the higher value being used. I note Miss M’s comment about the use of averages, but I find the approach taken was reasonable given the size of the lending, the credit check results and noting that the declared figures were compared to the estimates. Deducting Miss M’s existing credit commitments (£374), her housing costs (£367), living costs (£459) and the new loan repayments (£331) from her net monthly income left around £468 for any increase in costs or unforeseen expenses. • Based on the information Oakbrook Finance gathered and what it knew about Miss M’s circumstances, there was nothing to suggest Miss M was likely to be unable to sustainably repay what she was being lent. • I don’t think Oakbrook Finance acted unfairly in any other way. This means I don’t think Oakbrook Finance did anything wrong when it provided the loan to Miss M. I’ve also considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, for the reasons I’ve already given, I don’t think Oakbrook Finance lent irresponsibly to Miss M 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 M hoped for. But for the reasons above, I’m not asking Oakbrook Finance to do anything to put things right. My final decision My final decision is that I’m not upholding Miss M’s complaint about OAKBROOK FINANCE LIMITED. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Jane Archer Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --