Match the Cash Limited · DRN-6310249

The complaint Ms W and Mr W complain that Match the Cash Limited (Match the Cash’) trading as www.sharemyloan.co.uk irresponsibly approved to joint lending to them. What happened Match the Cash arranged a loan of £10,000 for Ms W and Mr W. The term of the loan was 60 months and the monthly repayments were £390.71 per month. The total amount repayable was £13,442.60. Ms W and her son Mr W say Match the Cash didn’t complete reasonable and proportionate checks. Had it done so, they say it would’ve seen the loan was unaffordable. Our investigator didn’t recommend this complaint be upheld. He thought Match the Cash had completed reasonable and proportionate checks. Ms W and Mr W disagreed with this and provided some detailed reasons which our investigator has also responded to. However, given that they remain unhappy with the outcome, the complaint has been passed to me for a 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 approach to complaints about irresponsible and unaffordable lending as well as the key rules, regulations and what we consider to be good industry practice on our website. I’ve used this approach to help me decide this complaint. Having looked at all the available evidence and information I’ve decided not to uphold this complaint for broadly the same reasons that our investigator gave. I’m satisfied that Match the Cash completed reasonable and proportionate enquiries. Match the Cash carried out a search of Ms W and Mr W’s credit files, conducted an affordability assessment and verified this information by way of access to bank statement information. They also relied on what Ms W and Mr W said during the application process. The information obtained showed their existing debts. Whilst Ms W had more debt commitments than Mr W, neither had recent adverse markings on their credit file. Match the Cash were aware that Mr W had some historical payment issues. Ms W’s bank statement information showed her sources of income and committed monthly expenditure. It also showed she would likely be left with a good amount of disposable income each month and was therefore in a position to take on the new lending.

-- 1 of 3 --

For Mr W, Match the Cash carried out similar checks but decided to go further so as to find out about his earnings, given that it couldn’t be identified from his bank statement details. Mr W provided evidence of his occupation and his employer and also confirmed how much he was due to be paid. He also offered some more detail about his regular expenditure. I appreciate this is an area of particular concern given that Mr W was not in fact in employment at the time. I think it was correct for Match the Cash to take extra steps to establish that Mr W would be able to meet the monthly repayments, given his specific circumstances. The information obtained was consistent with what Mr W had told Match the Cash as part of the application process. I therefore think Match the Cash was entitled to rely on the information provided from a registered business that said it was his employer, confirming he was working there and also that he was earning the figure got weekly income Mr W had quoted. I’ve also seen that both applications and evidence were put to an underwriter before the lending was finally approved. I would add that, having listened to the phone calls that were made by Match the Cash to Ms W and Mr W individually as part of the application process, they were both made aware that the loan was being approved on the basis of them being joint borrowers, with Mr W the primary borrower. In Ms W’s case, rather than being a guarantor for Mr W - as she’d initially anticipated – the Match the Cash representative outlined what her responsibilities would be as a second named joint borrower and that the lending would appear on her credit file. All of this means that, based on what it found for both Ms W and Mr W as a result of its checks and the further enquiries those checks prompted, I’m satisfied the enquiries Match the Cash completed enabled it to get a good understanding of their financial situation. As such I consider the enquiries were reasonable and proportionate. It follows that I think Match the Cash made a fair decision to approve the loan. Having approached the approval process on the basis that the loan was to be taken on a joint basis, the checks and enquiries Match the Cash had carried out indicated that the repayments were likely to be affordable for both Ms W and Mr W and that they would be able to meet the repayments on a sustainable basis. Ms W also says she felt she was put under pressure when applying for the loan. Whilst this is obviously an issue of potential concern, our investigator has explained why, based on the available evidence, Match the Cash didn’t have sufficient reason to think this might be the case. I agree. I therefore think the decision by Match the Cash to approve the lending was fair. I’ve also seen no information that suggests Match the Cash acted unfairly in any other way. I therefore won’t be upholding this complaint. 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 Match the Cash lent irresponsibly to Ms W and Mr W or otherwise treated them 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. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms W and Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Michael Goldberg Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --