Evergreen Finance London Limited · DRN-6272622

The complaint Mr W complains that Evergreen Finance London Limited trading as MoneyBoat.co.uk (“MoneyBoat) lent to him irresponsibly and particularly because of his gambling, he feels he ought to receive more compensation for its lack of due diligence which affected him. What happened Mr W complains about 14 loans taken between 23 April 2021 and 2 October 2023. After he had complained to MoneyBoat it responded with its final response letter (FRL) dated 28 January 2026. MoneyBoat offered to put things right for Mr W for loans 6 to 11 and then altered that to be Loans 6 to 14. Mr W referred it to the Financial Ombudsman Service in January 2026. The Investigator considered that Loans 4 to 14 were ones that MoneyBoat ought not to have approved for Mr W. MoneyBoat agreed. Mr W has said that he does not think any of the loans in 2021 should have been approved for him. So, Loans 1 to 3 inclusive remain in dispute. Plus, Mr W has asked for more compensation and/or refunds on the principal sums lent to him. Mr W has suggested that there’s an alteration to MoneyBoat’s policy for payday loans. Our investigator answered these points as well and did not consider anything further – over and above the usual redress (effective 1 January 2026) for Loans 4 to 14 – was needed. Mr W continued to disagree. So, the unresolved complaint was passed to me to decide and I will consider the loans and the points which are still disputed. 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. MoneyBoat needed to make sure that it didn’t lend irresponsibly. In practice, what this means is that it needed to carry out proportionate checks to be able to understand whether any lending was sustainable for Mr W before providing it. Our website sets out what we typically think about when deciding whether a lender’s checks were proportionate. And I’ve used this approach to help me decide this complaint. Generally, we think it’s reasonable for a lender’s checks to be less thorough – in terms of how much information it gathers and what it does to verify that information – in the early stages of a lending relationship. But we might think it needed to do more if, for example, a borrower’s income was low, the amount lent was high, or the information the lender had – such as a significantly impaired credit history – suggesting the lender needed to know more about a prospective borrower’s ability to repay. Loans 1, 2 and 3 were for £250, £200 and £200, respectively. When Mr W applied for Loan 1 on 23 April 2021, he was a new customer. I’ve reviewed the checks MoneyBoat carried out before lending. Mr W had informed MoneyBoat that he had few household overheads as he was living at home with his parents. Loan 1 was repaid on 21 June 2021 on time. The credit agreement stipulated that there were two scheduled instalments of £165 a month (rounded) each.

-- 1 of 4 --

Loan 2 was taken on 2 July 2021 and repaid 16 August 2021. Loan 3 was taken on 10 September 2021 and repaid 4 October 2021. For each of these three loans MoneyBoat has explained that it used a Credit Reference Agency (CRA) to verify Mr W’s income. And it used the CRA data on Mr W’s credit commitments and credit history to review that aspect. Plus, it used Mr W’s expenditure information supplied on the application forms – and where appropriate adjusted by cross referring those figures with data available to it as part of the Common Financial Statement. Those figures are set out in the FRL and I do not repeat them here. And I have thought about the fact that Mr W had declared only £100 a month for rent but his living at home with his parents would have explained that aspect. It’s unlikely Mr W was at risk of falling into rent arrears or running the risk of not being able to pay priority debts such as utility bills when living at home. And the relevance to MoneyBoat would have been Mr W was at less risk of not being able to repay the loans – and MoneyBoat would have factored that in when considering the loan applications. I consider that fair and reasonable. I’ve reviewed the Credit Searches carried out for Loans 1 , 2 and 3. Loan 1 Mr W had an overall debt balance of £13,484 of which £5,545 was the balance on a hire purchase agreement (HP). This would have been for an asset – a vehicle – and so has a different complexion to a debt for, say, a loan. Often vehicles are needed for commuting and/or general lifestyle activities. There were no repayment issues for the HP. Mr W was up to his maximum on one of his current account’s overdraft of £2,300 and had a £62 overdraft balance on an other current account. So that may indicate a cash flow issue bit often is the reason individuals apply for short term loans – to solve a cash flow issue. Use of an overdraft, on its own , is not necessarily a reason to consider that a loan ought to be refused. The other open loans on the CRA search were longer term ones with banks and although the data showed Mr W had used payday loans there was no adverse credit data of any kind on the record. Mr W had £3,178 balance on his credit cards in total and was not near the maximum credit limit for those. There was nothing there to show any financial difficulties at all and so I’d not have expected MoneyBoat to do more than it did. Loan 2 Having paid for Loan 1 on time, Mr W approached MoneyBoat again two weeks later for Loan 2 which was for a smaller sum of £200 and scheduled to cost him £125 a month for two months. The figures Mr W had declared are set out in the FRL. Mr W was still living at home. The credit search MoneyBoat carried out I have reviewed. Mr W was over his overdraft limit on one of his current accounts, but the bank had not registered any concerns. The other current account had a £0 balance. Mr W used his credit cards and was still paying off some bank loans and the HP. He had used payday loans in the past. There was no adverse data on his record of any kind and certainly nothing to prompt a lender such as MoneyBoat to consider more checks were needed. Loan 3 After repaying Loan 2 a few days earlier than scheduled on 16 August 2021, Mr W approached MoneyBoat more than three weeks later for a £200 loan. These gaps between Loans 1 and 2 and before applying for Loan 3 would have been a further indicator to MoneyBoat that Mr W was managing his money. This third loan was due to cost Mr W £119 (rounded) a month for 2 months.

-- 2 of 4 --

The credit search carried out showed that Mr W’s overall debt had decreased. He had an increased credit card limit and the total balance on his cards was under that total credit card limit. There was no adverse data at all – and presented much the same as the earlier credit search MoneyBoat had done. There was nothing there to prompt MoneyBoat to think that Mr W had a problem with his finances. And so, I would not have expected it to have done more than it did. Therefore, I do not uphold the complaint about Loans 1 to 3. Loans 4 to 14 The combination of our investigator’s view, plus the offers made by MoneyBoat before the complaint was referred to our Service, and now that MoneyBoat has conceded for Loans 4 to 14, all means that I need not review them. They are the undisputed part of the complaint having been agreed by MoneyBoat. Mr W has asked that I consider whether refund of the principal amounts advanced by MoneyBoat ought to be awarded to him. And he has requested more compensation for what he views as its lack of due diligence. My decision on both of those elements is no. Mr W has had the principal sums from MoneyBoat, made use of that money and has paid off those loans. The redress paragraphs below are fair and reasonable and reflect the approach I consider justified and in line with our Service. There’s no reason to refund any of the principal amounts. And the added interest element (calculated on the interest paid over when repaying the loans) is designed to compensate the complainant for being deprived of the use of their funds during the relevant period. Mr W has sent us links to other cases decided by other ombudsmen. He has agreed that the case facts are not in line with his. I’ve reviewed them, but we do not act on precedent at the Financial Ombudsman. Each complaint is looked at on its own merits and with its own circumstances. There’s no basis for me to consider it fair or reasonable for MoneyBoat to pay back to Mr W any of the principal sums advanced to him. He received those capital sums and made use of it. It’s only fair he repays it. Mr W has asked that we direct MoneyBoat alters its policies. That is outside the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service. Mr W needs to approach the regulator – the Financial Conduct Authority – if he wants to pursue that line. What follows are the redress paragraphs for MoneyBoat to follow if it has not already done so for the agreed upholds for Loans 4 to 14 inclusive. Mr W has paid off the loans. Putting things right MoneyBoat needs to put things right – if not already done so – by doing the following: A) It should add together the total of the repayments made by Mr W towards interest, fees and charges on loans 4 to 14 but not including anything already refunded. B) It should calculate the simple interest at the time weighted average rate using Bank of England base rate plus 1% simple interest per year* on the individual payments made by Mr W which were considered as part of “A”, calculated from the date Mr W originally made the payments, to the date the complaint is settled.# C) It should pay Mr W the total of “A” plus “B”. D) It should remove any adverse information recorded on Mr W’s credit file in relation to loans 4 and 5. The overall pattern of Mr W’s borrowing for loans 6 to 14 (as set out in our investigator’s view and accepted by MoneyBoat) means any information recorded about them is adverse, so it should remove loans 6 to 14 entirely from Mr W’s credit file.

-- 3 of 4 --

*HM Revenue & Customs usually requires MoneyBoat to deduct tax from this interest. It should give Mr W a certificate showing how much tax has been deducted if he asks for one. I’ve considered whether the relationship between Mr W and MoneyBoat might have been unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, I’m satisfied the redress I have directed should be carried out for Mr W results in fair compensation for him in the circumstances of his complaint. I’m satisfied, based on what I’ve seen, that no added award would be appropriate in this case. # We’ve provided an online calculator as a helpful tool, but we will not calculate interest for the parties. It's the responsibility of financial businesses to calculate and pay the correct amount, whether they use our calculator or their own method. Complainants should ensure they are satisfied with the accuracy of the amount paid. My final decision My final decision is that I endorse the uphold outlined by our investigator and agreed to by Evergreen Finance London Limited trading as MoneyBoat.co.uk. And I direct that it does as I have outlined in the ‘how to put things right’ section of the decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Rachael Williams Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --