Loans 2 Go Limited · DRN-6070216

The complaint Around September 2022 Loans 2 Go Limited trading as Loans 2 Go provided Miss Y with a £250 loan over an 18-month term. Around June 2025 they provided Miss Y with a second loan for £400 again over an 18-month term, which had an APR of 678.8%. The total amount repayable was £1,407.96, the monthly repayments were £78.22. Miss Y says the loans were provided irresponsibly. What happened The details of this complaint are well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here. Loans 2 Go has accepted that Loan One was unaffordable and have agreed to put things right, so I won’t comment further about this loan. But they said Loan Two was affordable for Miss Y and it didn’t cause her any financial detriment. They asked for an ombudsman to decide. The facts about Loan Two 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 Miss Y’s complaint. I’ve decided the loan wasn’t provided fairly because: • I think the checks Loans 2 Go did before providing the credit were reasonable and proportionate given the credit facility they offered and what they knew about Miss Y’s financial situation. • Based on the information Loans 2 Go gathered and what they knew about Miss Y’s circumstances, I think they should have realised Miss Y was unlikely to be able to sustainably repay what she was being lent. • The information showed Miss Y should have had sufficient disposable income to afford the loan based on the income and expenditure she declared. However, their credit check showed Miss Y had opened 10 credit accounts within the previous 12 months. Six of which were for credit cards of which Miss Y had quickly used her available credit limit, using 94% of her available credit within the preceding six months. And she’d used 96% of her available credit the month prior to the loan. Miss Y had also taken out three loans within the preceding six months. She was using 92% of an overdraft for one of her current accounts. And was in an arrangement to pay for a hire purchase agreement.

-- 1 of 2 --

• Loans 2 Go had sufficient information that suggested Miss Y was reliant on credit and struggled to manage her existing credit accounts. So, I don’t agree with their assertion that the checks showed the loan was unlikely to cause Miss Y harm. I consider the information suggested the opposite. • Had Loans 2 Go checked further (which I don’t think they needed to do as there was sufficient evidence to show the lending was most likely unsustainable for Miss Y) they’d have seen further evidence of Miss Y’s reliance on short-term borrowing to meet her credit commitments. And regular gambling activity. This means I don’t think Loans 2 Go should have provided the loan to Miss Y. I’ve considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, I’m satisfied the redress I’m awarding in this case, as set out below, results in fair compensation for Miss Y in the circumstances of this complaint. I’m therefore satisfied, based on what I’ve seen, that no additional award would be appropriate in this case. Putting things right As I don’t think Loans 2 Go ought to have lent Loan Two to Miss Y, I don’t think it’s fair for them to be able to charge any interest or charges under the loan agreement. But I think Miss Y should pay back what she borrowed. Therefore, Loans 2 Go should: Add up the total repayments Miss Y has made and deduct these from the total amount of money she received. a) If this results in Miss Y having paid more than she received, any overpayments should be refunded along with 8% simple interest (calculated from the date the overpayments were made until the date of settlement). † Loans 2 Go should also remove all adverse information regarding this account from Miss Y’s credit file. b) If any capital balance remains outstanding, then Loans 2 Go should arrange an affordable and suitable payment plan with Miss Y. Once Miss Y has cleared the balance, any adverse information in relation to the account should be removed from her credit file. † HM Revenue & Customs requires Loans 2 Go to take off tax from this interest Loans 2 Go must give Miss Y a certificate showing how much tax they’ve taken off if she asks for one. My final decision My final decision is that I’m upholding Miss Y’s complaint and Loans 2 Go Limited must put things right as I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss Y to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Anne Scarr Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --