Lendable Ltd · DRN-6241621

The complaint Lendable Ltd provided Mr T with a £8,000 loan in August 2024. The loan was repayable over 48 months with monthly repayments of around £276. Mr T says the credit was provided irresponsibly. What happened The details of this complaint are well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here. The facts aren’t in dispute, so I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my 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 general approach to complaints about unaffordable or irresponsible lending on our website, and I’ve taken this into account in deciding Mr T’s case. I’ve decided the credit was provided fairly because: • I think the checks Lendable did before providing the credit were reasonable and proportionate given the credit it offered and what it knew about Mr T’s financial situation. • Lendable’s checks showed that Mr T was employed full time with a declared annual income of £28,000. His net monthly income was verified using a credit reference agency tool and a net monthly figure of £1,973 was confirmed. A credit check was carried out which showed Mr T had a mortgage, two outstanding loans, a credit card and two current accounts. His outstanding mortgage was £135,464, his loans £23,388 and his revolving credit £106. While Mr T’s unsecured debts were quite high compared to his income, I do not find they were at a level that meant further credit shouldn’t be given and I note the intended purpose of this loan was to consolidate his debts. • Mr T had no bankruptcies or county court judgments recorded. He was up to date on all of his accounts with no adverse information recorded on his mortgage, loans or current accounts. Arrears had been previously recorded on his credit card account, but this had been brought up to date with no adverse information recorded in the previous nine months. Mr T has noted that he was over the limit on his credit card. His balance was £106 against a £100 limit. I do not find the scale of this, given the previous history on the account, raised any major concerns and further noting the purpose of this loan, I do not think this alone meant that further checks were needed or that the loan shouldn’t have been given. Mr T has also noted his overdraft usage. The credit check showed he was overdrawn by £17 on one account and not using his overdraft on his other current account. I do not think this level of usage was such that further checks were needed.

-- 1 of 2 --

• Mr T’s credit file was used to identify his payments for his existing credit commitments and estimates based on third party data were used for his other expenses. Noting the information received through the credit and other checks, I find this a reasonable approach. Deducting Mr T’s credit costs (including the new loan repayments and factoring in the debt consolidation) his housing and other living costs, left around £273 for any unforeseen costs. • Based on the information Lendable gathered and what it knew about Mr T’s circumstances, there was nothing to suggest Mr T was likely to be unable to sustainably repay what he was being lent. • I don’t think Lendable acted unfairly in any other way. This means I don’t think Lendable did anything wrong when it provided the loan to Mr T. 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 Lendable lent irresponsibly to Mr T or otherwise treated him 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. I know this isn’t the outcome Mr T hoped for. But for the reasons above, I’m not asking Lendable to do anything to put things right. My final decision My final decision is that I’m not upholding Mr T’s complaint about Lendable Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Jane Archer Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --