Oakbrook Finance Limited · DRN-6220799

The complaint Miss R complains that Oakbrook Finance Limited (Oakbrook) lent to her irresponsibly when granting her a loan without sufficient affordability checks having been performed. What happened Miss R applied for and was granted the following loan from Oakbrook. Date Loan Amount Loan term Monthly repayment October 2025 £1,750 36 months £94.85 In summary, Miss R states that Oakbrook failed to make reasonable and proportionate checks before lending to her, resulting in her being granted an unaffordable loan. Miss R says had reasonable checks been made Oakbrook would have seen she was already in financial stress with high card utilisation, multiple existing lines of credit and a poor credit score. Miss R says the lending should not have been offered and says this has caused her further financial difficulties, and stress. Miss R complained to Oakbrook in January 2026 who considered her complaint, but did not uphold it. In their Final Response Letter of the same month, Oakbrook said they carried out reasonable and proportionate checks before making their lending decision. They said Miss R’s finances were known to them via credit checks at the time of the decision. Their affordability checks showed the new lending was affordable and there were no reasons to suspect financial distress. Miss R disagreed and brought the matter to this service in January 2026. An investigator considered the merits of the case and the available evidence. In his view he said the checks undertaken by Oakbrook had been fair and reasonable and were proportionate to the lending. He also said the lending decision had been fair. Miss R disagreed and so the matter has come to me for a final 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 considering unaffordable and irresponsible lending complaints on our website – including the key relevant rules, guidance, good industry practice and law. In short, lenders must ensure that any credit that is approved is affordable and sustainable for the borrower. I’ve followed our approach when deciding Miss R’s complaint. I would like to thank Miss R for her focused submissions in relation to the investigator’s view. I have read and considered both her comments and the response to her from the investigator. Having considered all the evidence available to me and recognising that it is likely to disappoint Miss R, I agree with the investigator’s view in this case. I will explain why I have reached this conclusion.

-- 1 of 3 --

When Miss R applied for the loan she declared a gross annual income of £62,500 providing some high level expenditure figures covering housing, rent and existing credit commitments. Oakbrook validated Miss R’s income using account throughput (CATO) reporting. This confirmed an annual monthly income of around £3,964.45 which is consistent with the income declared by Miss R. Oakbrook then considered Miss R’s credit file and bureau data. Finally they considered her declared outgoings applying modelling based on the Office of National Statistics (ONS) data. It is fair to say Miss R’s credit report was not perfect and her credit score was only around 200. However, Oakbrook lend to customers where this is not uncommon so that in itself is not a block to further lending, much would depend on what the credit file showed, In this case, the credit file showed a County Court Judgment (CCJ) recorded 52 months prior to the application and four previous defaults. The most recent of the defaults was four years before the application. Oakbrook treated these as historical matters not necessarily reflective of Miss R’s current circumstances relying on more recent credit history. I think this was a reasonable approach to have taken given the adverse public records were now at least four years old with no more recent entries. Oakbrook’s credit report showed no subsequent CCJs or defaults, no Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVA) or similar agreements with creditors and no debt management plans. It also showed a number of existing lines of credit but none were in arrears. The credit file showed that total existing credit was around £16,000 which although not insignificant was not in itself a block to further lending given the gross income of £64,000 though this would be influenced by the content of the credit file. Oakbrook say their credit checks revealed only one recent credit search and no payday loans. Miss R disputes the loan, saying she took out a payday loan the day before her application. I can see from Miss R’s copy of her own credit report that this is the case. For clarify for Miss R, I can only consider information available to Oakbrook at the time of their lending decision. Having reviewed the credit files, I am satisfied that Oakbrook could not have seen the payday loan she mentions as it was yet to arrive on Miss R’s credit file. Having considered the amount of lending, the content of the credit file, the verification of income and application of ONS data modelling to expenditure, I think Oakbrook’s checks were reasonable and proportionate for the lending being offered. I am also persuaded that Oakbrook considered Miss R’s ability to repay the new lending. I have seen the figures used by Oakbrook to calculate Miss R’s income and expenditure and validated these myself given the information provided by Miss R and data provided by both parties in this case. Having done so, I agree with the investigator’s conclusion that once known expenditure had been discounted, the disposable income remaining was such that the new lending was likely affordable. Finally, in her response to the investigator’s view, Miss R says it should have been clear to Oakbrook that further lending was not appropriate. I can only consider what was known or should reasonably have been known to Oakbrook when they made their lending decision. Having considered the points raised by Miss R, in this case I cannot agree. Having seen the credit files, I do not think there were obvious indicators of financial difficulties or stress such that Oakbrook should have excluded further lending.

-- 2 of 3 --

Given what I have said, in this case, I think the lending decision made by Oakbrook was fair. In reaching my conclusions, I’ve also considered whether the lending relationship between Miss R and Oakbrook might have been unfair to Miss R under s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”). However, for the reasons I’ve already explained, I’m satisfied that Oakbrook did not lend irresponsibly when providing Miss R with the loan. And I haven’t seen anything to suggest that s140A CCA 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 Miss R’s complaint against Oakbrook Finance Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss R to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Richard Bellamy Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --