Loans 2 Go Limited · DRN-6261279

The complaint Miss N has complained that Loans 2 Go Limited unfairly provided her with two loans. What happened Miss N entered into finance agreements with Loans 2 Go for two loans as shown below. Date Amount of credit Term Monthly payment Total repayable September 2022 £250 18 months £51.39 £925.02 March 2023 £366.72 18 months £75.38 £1,356.38 In October 2024, Miss N complained to Loans 2 Go about the lending, with the help of a professional representative. In the complaint, Miss N said she didn’t think it had lent to her responsibly. She said had Loans 2 Go given proper consideration to her situation at the time it would have realised that the loan was unaffordable for her because she was using her wages to gamble. Loans 2 Go looked into Miss N’s complaint and issued a final response letter explaining it believed it had acted fairly when completing its checks. It said it had confirmed the agreement was affordable by gathering information from Miss N, checking the information the credit reference agencies held, checking her income and using data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Loans 2 Go has said based on the information it found, it believes its decision to lend was fair. It also said that Miss N had been required to read and sign the loan agreement before the lending was provided. It explained that during the application process Miss N was asked if she had any addictions – including gambling, and that the response given was ‘no’. It also pointed out that Miss N had 14 days to change her mind about the loan and this had been made clear in the agreement. Miss N didn’t accept Loans 2 Go’s response, so she referred her complaint to our service. One of our investigators looked into it, and based on the evidence available, our investigator said he didn’t think Loans 2 Go’s decision to lend was unfair, so he didn’t uphold the complaint. Miss N didn’t accept what our investigator said and asked for a final decision on the case. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint has been passed 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. I think there are key questions I need to consider in order to decide what is fair and reasonable in this case: • Did Loans 2 Go carry out reasonable and proportionate checks to satisfy itself that Miss N was able to sustainably repay the credit?

-- 1 of 3 --

• If not, what would reasonable and proportionate checks have shown at the time? • Did Loans 2 Go make a fair lending decision? • Did Loans 2 Go act unfairly or unreasonably towards Miss N in some other way? Loans 2 Go had to carry out reasonable and proportionate checks to satisfy itself that Miss N would be able to repay the credit sustainably. It needed to assess the likelihood of Miss N being able to repay the credit, as well as considering the impact of the repayments on her. There is no set list of checks that it had to do, but it could take into account several different things such as the amount borrowed, the length of the agreement, the amount of the monthly repayments, and the customer’s circumstances. Loans 2 Go says that when Miss N first applied for a loan it asked her about her income and verified this through payslips. It said that based on an average of her most recent payslips Miss N was earning around £1,575 a month. At the time of the second loan Loans to go says it was able to verify that Miss N was earning around £2,000 a month. Loans 2 Go says it used Miss N’s credit file to understand her repayments to other debts and to get an understanding of her situation before it decided to lend on both occasions. It’s said it found no recent defaults, no bankruptcies, IVAs, or CCJ’s. However, it noted that Miss N had a default that had taken place two years before the initial lending. It also found that Miss N had some recent missed payments but that she had since brought all the accounts back up to date. At the time of the second loan, it found that again although Miss N had some payment issues in mid-2022 she was up to date with all of her accounts at the time of the application and had reduced the amount due for the defaulted account. Loans 2 Go has provided evidence of the calculations it did when considering whether Miss N could afford the loan. I can see it gathered information from Miss N and considered nationally recognised statistics. It estimated Miss N’s living costs using the data from the ONS and used these figures along with those she had provided, and the figures from the credit reference agencies to calculate affordability. In this calculation it included costs for rent, groceries, utilities, transport, credit commitments, a buffer for other regular expenses, and repayments to this loan. Based on this information, Loans 2 Go calculated that Miss N would be left with just over £500 a month in disposable income at the time of the first loan and just over £900 for the second loan. This would be to cover other non-essential costs and any unexpected expenses, and I think both are reasonable amounts. Based on what I’ve seen, I’m persuaded the checks Loans 2 Go completed were reasonable and proportionate to the amount and type of credit it went on to approve. I appreciate that Miss N had some negative credit history but at the time of each lending decision Miss N was up to date with all of her payments. Miss N had also been able to maintain her first loan demonstrating that she was able to keep up with repayments. I accept Loans 2 Go needed to send some reminders to Miss N about payments, but she then made payments to the loan on the same day it was due. So, as the loans appeared to be affordable and manageable, I’m satisfied the decisions to lend were reasonable based on the information Loans 2 Go obtained about Miss N’s circumstances at the time of each loan. I’ve thought carefully about what Miss N has said about her gambling and I’ve no doubt this was a difficult time for her. But I haven’t seen anything that suggests Loans to Go should have been aware of her situation or that her gambling might mean the loan was unaffordable or unsustainable. I’m very sorry to disappoint Miss N but overall, I think the checks completed were proportionate and I’m not persuaded that Loans 2 Go created unfairness in its relationship with her as a result of its decisions to lend.

-- 2 of 3 --

It appears that Miss N did have some short-lived payment difficulties with the second loan, and I can see that Loans 2 Go engaged with her in a positive way about this. Miss N was then able to catch up payments and maintain the account until she settled the loan early in January 2024. Given this I haven’t seen anything to suggest that Loans 2 Go treated Miss N unfairly throughout the life of either loan. I’ve also considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But overall, it’s not clear enough to me that Loans 2 Go created unfairness in its relationship with Miss N by lending to her irresponsibly, or in the way it handled the account under the credit agreement. And 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’m very sorry to disappoint Miss N, but for the reasons set out, I don’t find that her relationship with Loans 2 Go was unfair, and I can’t conclude Loans 2 Go treated her unfairly in any other way based on what I’ve seen. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Miss N’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss N to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Charlotte Roberts Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --