Prodigy Finance Ltd · DRN-6137131

The complaint Mr B complains that Prodigy Finance Ltd treated him unfairly when his circumstances changed and he became unable to continue with repayments for the two loans he had taken out. The outstanding balance for the two loans combined was around $50,000. What happened Mr B had taken out the loans to support his studies in the USA and intended to then pursue a career in the country. However, through no fault of his own, his authorisation to work in the USA was withdrawn unexpectedly. Understandably, along with many other impacts on Mr B, this caused him financial difficulties to the extent that he felt he would be unable to repay the outstanding balances in full. Mr B explained the circumstances to Prodigy and made an offer of $10,000 to settle the loans. Prodigy considered the offer, but felt that even under the circumstances, it was unable to accept this as a full and final settlement, so Mr B referred his complaint to this service. An investigator considered the merits of Mr B’s complaint, but felt that Prodigy had treated him fairly, and as an agreement couldn’t be reached, Mr B asked for an ombudsman 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. In reviewing this complaint, I’ve only considered matters that occurred before the final response letter was issued, in line with the rules this service must follow. Having done so, I’m not upholding this complaint. I know this will disappoint Mr B, so I’ll explain why. The facts of the case aren’t in dispute, so my consideration is based on whether Prodigy has treated Mr B fairly, in line with regulatory expectations, as Mr B found himself in financial difficulties. The relevant regulation for how a lender should support a customer in financial difficulty is defined within the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC) and for these purposes, CONC 7.3.4R states that A firm must treat customers in or approaching arrears or in default with forbearance and due consideration. There are no defined actions that a lender, Prodigy in this case, must take. But it should be proportionate and take Mr B’s individual circumstances into account. During the course of the complaint, Mr B increased his settlement offers to $13,500 and then to $17,500, seeking to bring the matter to a close, but Prodigy didn’t accept.

-- 1 of 2 --

Instead, it explained that if Mr B wanted to make a one-off payment in line with his offers, then it could be used to reduce future payments. It also offered to explore options with Mr B for a temporary break in the monthly repayments, a three month pause in interest charges and to look at options for a long term repayment plan. Unfortunately due to the circumstances Mr B found himself in, he was unable to agree to any of these options. Having considered this at length, I think that Prodigy has been fair and explored reasonable options for Mr B, when making the offers I have referred to above. And as it hasn’t done anything wrong, there is no reason for me to compel it to accept Mr B’s offer. I’m aware that I’ve only summarised Mr B’s complaint points. And whilst I do have the utmost sympathy for Mr B and the situation he found himself in, I’m not going to respond to every single point made. No discourtesy is intended by this. It simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. If there’s something I haven’t mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it, I haven’t. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual point to be able to reach what I think is a fair outcome. My final decision For the reasons outlined above, my final decision is that I’m not upholding this complaint against Prodigy Finance Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. David Barker Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --