DRN-6314716

The complaint Mr G complains about the way Oakbrook Finance Limited trading as Finio Loans (‘Finio’) handled his loan account when he got into financial difficulties. What happened Mr G had a loan agreement with Finio which was due to be repaid over a period of eighteen months. The agreement started on 4 June 2024 (dates referred to hereinafter are all in 2024 unless otherwise stated). In July, Mr G contacted Finio to let it know he wouldn’t be able to meet his agreed monthly repayments of just over £130 for a short period of time. He said this was due to an ongoing fraud investigation by his bank which had led to his bank restricting access to his funds. Finio agreed to a breathing space. Mr G started to repay monthly amounts which were over the contractual amounts he was due to pay. And, by March 2025, he had repaid the loan (early) in full. Mr G made several complaints to Finio about how it handled his account. He said he was clearly told the breathing space would not result in any negative markers or missed payment entries on his credit file. Finio didn’t think it had made any errors, so it rejected Mr G’s complaint. Our investigator didn’t recommend upholding the complaint. As Mr G disagreed, the matter has been passed to me to decide. I issued a provisional decision. I said I wasn’t intending to uphold the complaint and provided additional reasoning for doing so. Mr G disagreed making several points including that: he didn’t think it was fair that Finio had added negative information to his credit file when it had agreed to a breathing space period; he said that interest had been applied to his loan when it shouldn’t have been; he says he didn’t miss any payments in October and November; and he considers that the negative markers added to his credit file should be removed by Finio. As no agreement could be reached the matter has been passed back 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. Although a number of issues have been raised, this decision only addresses those issues I consider to be materially relevant to this complaint. This isn’t meant as a discourtesy to either party – it simply reflects the informal nature of our Service. I want to reassure Mr G that I’ve fully considered his response to my provisional decision. But I can’t see that he has added anything significantly new. So, my decision remains that I’m not upholding this complaint for the following reasons: From looking at Mr G’s Finio account statements (the ‘statements’), I can see that the loan started on 4 June. The repayments were due on the first of each month. So, the June repayment was attempted on 1 July but this was unpaid. The first repayment Mr G made according to his statements was on 1 October. This meant he missed the repayments that were due to be paid for June, July and August. The first payment he made was on 1 October

-- 1 of 3 --

which would’ve been for the September period. Mr G then continued to make repayments over the contractual amounts and settled the loan early in March 2025. Mr G is upset about Finio recording missed credit markers on his credit file as he says he only missed the payments due to his bank account being compromised due to a number of fraudulent transactions. This had resulted in him being unable to pay the Finio loan for a certain period because his bank had restricted access to his funds whilst it was investigating matters. I can hear that Mr G called Finio on 10 July to explain all of this. I’ve listened to this call, and the agent gave Mr G a number of options, but he only wanted the breathings space option. The agent clearly explained to Mr G that whilst he wouldn’t be required to make any repayments during the breathing space, which was initially set to last for 30 days but was extended for more than 60 days, this would still impact negatively on his credit file. I consider Finio gave Mr G clear, fair and not misleading information about the fact missed payments would be recorded on his credit file even with an agreed breathing space. Finio said as a gesture of goodwill, it would consider removing the missed payment markers if Mr G could provide suitable evidence from his bank confirming what had happened. I’ve reviewed the information Mr G sent to Finio as evidence of the fraud. However, this information, as Finio has said, simply refers to his bank investigating transactions which Mr G claimed were fraudulent. Mr G didn’t, for example, provide Finio with anything from his bank to confirm there had actually been a fraud. So, I’m satisfied Finio acted fairly and reasonably here. Finio has a duty to provide accurate information to credit reference agencies. In this case, whilst Mr G did ultimately pay the loan in full, he did miss payments due for June, July and August. So, I can’t fairly say Finio has acted incorrectly for reporting these missed payments to the relevant credit reference agencies. Mr G also says Finio incorrectly charged him interest during the breathing space period which started in July. I asked Finio for more information about what was charged. And taking into account Finio’s further explanation along with all the other information in this case including Mr G’s statements, account notes and calls he had with Finio agents, I make the following observations (as a reminder all dates are in 2024): • The interest of £63.53 that was charged on 1 July was the interest due for June. In my view, this interest was correctly charged as Mr G wasn’t in a breathing space in June. • The 30 day breathing space was applied on 10 July. This meant there was still interest due for the early part of July. This amount was £21.17 and was charged on 1 August. So, I think Finio acted correctly when it charged interest in July because there was a short period in that month where Mr G’s account wasn’t in a breathing space. • A further breathing space was applied from 9 August. This breathing space ended on 27 September at which point interest started to be charged again. Mr G’s statements show that interest of £2.35 was charged on 1 October, which was the amount due for September. • Finio says Mr G set up a payment plan on, or around, 27 September for more than the monthly contractual repayment amounts. However, the following day (28 September) interest stopped being charged again. Finio explained that this was because it freezes interest if a customer’s account is in arrears of more than 60 days which was the case here. • The interest was unfrozen on 29 October because the account was no longer over 60 days in arrears. The amount of £3.99 was added to Mr G’s account on 1 November, which was the interest charged for October. • On 31 October the account was again 60 days in arrears, so the interest was frozen again. Interest started to be charged again on 4 November as Mr G’s

-- 2 of 3 --

account was no longer 60 days in arrears at that point. Taking all of the above into account, I don’t think there’s persuasive evidence to support Mr G’s claim that Finio incorrectly applied interest during the relevant breathing space period. I note Mr G’s further comments in response to my provisional decision. But I can’t see that his added anything substantially new. For completeness, I’ll add the following: • I don’t think it’s disputed that Mr G made payments in October and November. The account still went into arrears after this point, but this wasn’t because of missed payments. This was because the payments Mr G was making didn’t cover the arrears that had built up by the time he started making payments. This is why Finio started a breathing space for Mr G even when he began to make payments. I think it has acted fairly in this respect. And as I’ve said, I don’t think there’s persuasive evidence to show Mr G was incorrectly charged interest for those periods where breathing spaces applied. • Mr G maintains Finio shouldn’t have added negative missed payment markers to his credit file whilst he was in a breathing space – he doesn’t think this was fair. But as I’ve said, I think it clearly told him that it would do so even though he was in a breathing space. Mr G hasn’t provided anything persuasive to show that Finio acted incorrectly when it recorded missed payment markers to his credit file. This appears to me to be an accurate reflection of what happened and also Mr G was told this would happen when he called Finio. So, in all these circumstances I think Finio has acted fairly and reasonably. For all the above reasons, and whilst I very much sympathise with Mr G’s situation, my decision is that I’m not upholding this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Yolande Mcleod Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --