DRN-6305126

The complaint Mr M is unhappy that Inclusive Finance Limited trading as Creditspring, charged monthly membership fees after he’d repaid a loan early and charged him two sets of fees for the same month after he took out a new agreement. What happened In September 2024, Mr M took out a fixed sum loan agreement with Creditspring. The agreement was for a minimum term of 12-months and allowed him to draw down two advances of £1,000 – the second advance was only available after the first advance had been repaid in full, and only if all payments had been made on time. The agreement had an “interest rate [of] 0% per annum fixed for the duration of the Agreement.” However, Mr M was required to pay “a fee of £28 per month, being £336 for the minimum term of this Agreement. The payment entitles you to draw down two advances of £1,000 each during the 12 month minimum term. Each advance is repayable over 6 monthly instalments, with no interest payable.” The agreement also explained that, due to the fixed fee nature, the APR was 64.5%. Mr M drew down the first £1,000 advance on 4 September 2024, which he’d repaid in full on 5 February 2025, the day he took the second £1,000 advance. He then repaid the second advance in monthly instalments, clearing it in full on 7 July 2025. Mr M entered into a new agreement with Creditspring in July 2025, under exactly the same terms as the first agreement. He took the first £1,000 advance under the second agreement on 7 July 2025 – the day he repaid the second advance under the first agreement. Mr M is unhappy that, despite paying the second advance under the first agreement in full on 7 July 2025, Creditspring continued to charge him the £28 monthly fee under this agreement. He was also unhappy that he was charged monthly fees under the first agreement and second agreement at the same time. He didn’t think the agreement was a true 0% credit agreement, and that the monthly fee, which Creditspring refer to as a membership fee, is the actual cost of the credit, and would be payable whether the advances were drawn down or not. Creditspring didn’t uphold Mr M’s complaint. They explained the agreement operated under a fixed fee membership model where “no traditional interest is applied to the borrowing, the fixed membership fee forms the total cost of the credit.” They said this was clearly stated in the agreement and was reflected in the advertised APR. They explained that this fixed fee is not discounted in the event of early repayment and the full fee remains due. Finally, Creditspring explained that each credit agreement is independent, so any fees paid under an old agreement do not carry forward to a new one. So, they didn’t uphold the complaint. Unhappy with this response, Mr M brought the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service for investigation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Our investigator thought the terms of the agreements were clearly stated and had been fairly applied by Creditspring. So, they didn’t think Creditspring had done anything wrong. Mr M didn’t agree with the investigator’s opinion. He thought the membership fee was misleading as it was mandatory and was intrinsically a “price paid for access to credit.” He didn’t think that, once the balance had been repaid early there was any meaningful ongoing benefit to paying the fee. He also didn’t think it was fair that he was essentially paying fees for two different agreements at the same time. Because Mr M didn’t agree, this matter has been passed to me to decide. 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. Having done so, I’ve reached the same overall conclusions as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. If I haven’t commented on any specific point, it’s because I don’t believe it’s affected what I think is the right outcome. Where evidence has been incomplete or contradictory, my decision will be based on the balance of probabilities – what I think is most likely to have happened given the available evidence and wider circumstances. My role is to decide what’s fair and reasonable ‘in the round’, in line with our service’s remit. When considering matters, I’ve had regard to the relevant law and regulations; any regulator’s rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice; and (if appropriate) what I consider was good industry practice at the time. When reaching a decision on what’s a fair way to resolve this complaint, I don’t have to reach the same decision as, for example, a court might reach when considering a breach of contract. Mr M was supplied with credit under a fixed sum loan agreement. This is a regulated consumer credit agreement which means we’re able to investigate complaints about it. I’ve seen Creditspring’s marketing material, as well as the agreements signed by Mr M. From this, it’s quite clear that the monthly fee of £28 represents the cost of the credit. This is acknowledged by Creditspring and, as they say, is reflected in the APR. The charge for each agreement is £336, regardless of whether the customer draws down £1,000, two lots of £1,000, or nothing at all. There is nothing in any of the marketing material or the agreement that indicates this amount will be discounted for early repayments and, as this is a fee, not an interest, driven agreement, the Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004 don’t apply. When Mr M repaid the second advance on the first agreement in July 2025, as he was taking out a new agreement with Creditspring the same day, he was also required to repay the outstanding £58 fees. Creditspring’s marketing material is clear that “there is a limit of one membership per person, and there are 12 monthly instalments.” So, as Mr M was taking out a new agreement, with a new £336 fee payable over 12 monthly instalments, he was required to pay the outstanding fees under the original agreement. Having taken everything into consideration, and while I appreciate Mr M won’t agree with me, I’m satisfied that Creditspring have acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances. I say this because their fee structure is clear and transparent, both in the marketing material and the agreement itself, and the full fee is payable under each agreement – there is no reduction for early repayment. As such, I won’t be asking them to do anything more.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision For the reasons explained, I don’t uphold Mr M’s complaint about Inclusive Finance Limited trading as Creditspring. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Andrew Burford Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --