Evergreen Finance London Limited · DRN-6133884

The complaint Miss M complains that Evergreen Finance London Limited trading as MoneyBoat.co.uk (“MoneyBoat”) provided her with a loan which wasn’t affordable and MoneyBoat would’ve known this by carrying out sufficient affordability checks. What happened In October 2025, MoneyBoat advanced one loan of £500. This was to be repaid in five monthly instalments of £141.54 followed by a final instalment of £141.40. As of December 2025, an outstanding balance remained due. MoneyBoat considered the complaint and concluded it had made a reasonable decision to lend. Unhappy with this response, Miss M then referred the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. The complaint was then considered by an Investigator, who didn’t uphold it. Miss M didn’t agree saying that she had taken out a lot of credit in the months before the loan was granted which showed she was struggling. Miss M provided copy bank statements which she says show she couldn’t afford the repayments she had to make. Miss M also says she’s received an outcome on another complaint about a loan taken just before this one, and her other complaint was upheld. These comments didn’t change the Investigator’s mind and as no agreement could be reached the complaint has been passed to me. 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 this type of lending - including all the relevant rules, guidance and good industry practice - on our website. MoneyBoat had to assess the lending to check if Miss M could afford to pay back the amount she’d borrowed without undue difficulty. It needed to do this in a way which was proportionate to the circumstances. MoneyBoat’s checks could have taken into account a number of different things, such as how much was being lent, the size of the repayments, and Miss M’s income and expenditure. With this in mind, I think in the early stages of a lending relationship, less thorough checks might have been proportionate. But certain factors might suggest MoneyBoat should have done more to establish that any lending was sustainable for Miss M. These factors include: • Miss M having a low income (reflecting that it could be more difficult to make any loan repayments to a given loan amount from a lower level of income); • The amounts to be repaid being especially high (reflecting that it could be more difficult to meet a higher repayment from a particular level of income);

-- 1 of 3 --

• Miss M having a large number of loans and/or having these loans over a long period of time (reflecting the risk that repeated refinancing may signal that the borrowing had become, or was becoming, unsustainable); • Miss M coming back for loans shortly after previous borrowing had been repaid (also suggestive of the borrowing becoming unsustainable). There may even come a point where the lending history and pattern of lending itself clearly demonstrates that the lending was unsustainable for Miss M. The investigator didn’t consider this applied to Miss M’s complaint as there was only one loan and I agree with this. MoneyBoat was required to establish whether Miss M could sustainably repay the loan – not just whether she technically had enough money to make her repayments. Having enough money to make the repayments could of course be an indicator that Miss M was able to repay her loan sustainably. But it doesn’t automatically follow that this is the case. Miss M has said she has another complaint about a payday loan taken the month before, and for a smaller sum, which an Investigator upheld in her favour. I’ve been able to locate this other complaint within our system. So, I think the inference Miss M is drawing is that because the complaint has been upheld for unaffordable lending that it therefore follows this complaint should also be upheld. But my role is to consider the individual circumstances of the complaint taking account of any relevant laws and regulations. What that does mean is that there are times when what appear to be similar circumstances can lead to different outcomes depending on the type and nature of the borrowing and the types of check(s) any lender may have carried out and what those checks show. In short, another Investigator’s outcome – that wasn’t referred to a decision where the outcome may well have changed, doesn’t set a precedent that I’m bound to follow. I’m satisfied in this case, that I’ve fully considered the information Miss M gave to MoneyBoat as well as the checks it conducted, what those checks showed. Miss M told MoneyBoat she earned £2,275 per month. It’s possible, that MoneyBoat did use a tool provided by a credit reference agency to cross check what Miss M had told it. Or no such check was carried out. But even if no income check was carried out, I’d still say that was reasonable given this was the first loan provided to Miss M. MoneyBoat also asked Miss M about her day to day living costs including her rent, food, credit commitments to name a few. MoneyBoat was told all of her costs came to £1,025 per month. However, I can see that MoneyBoat again didn’t just accept what Miss M declared, it increased Miss M’s declared outgoings by a further £926 – taking them to £1,951 per month. This increase was made following the credit search (which I come on to below) and/or statistical data that MoneyBoat used to check what Miss M had told it. But even with the increased living costs MoneyBoat calculated Miss M had sufficient disposable income to afford her repayments. MoneyBoat also carried out a credit search, and I’ve considered the results it received. Firstly, there were no defaults, insolvencies or County Court Judgments or any missed payments on the active accounts. All of Miss M’s active accounts had been manged as expected and MoneyBoat took the monthly payments Miss M was committed to into account for its affordability assessment which is what I would’ve expected it to have done.

-- 2 of 3 --

While I can see that a number of new accounts had been opened within the preceding six months these covered new credit cards, retailer loans, loans, and buy-now-pay later products. I’ve considered this but considering the other checks that MoneyBoat carried out, the loan appeared affordable. There wasn’t anything from the credit search result that would’ve led MoneyBoat to carry out further checks or to have declined the application. Overall, it was reasonable for MoneyBoat to have relied on the information Miss M provided to it and the results of its own checks– which showed she had sufficient disposable income to afford the loan repayments – without the need to verify or cross check beyond what it did. This means I don’t think MoneyBoat needed to have reviewed Miss M’s application more closely such as through bank statements – in my view doing so would’ve been disproportionate to the circumstances of the application. I am therefore not upholding Miss M’s complaint. An outstanding balance may well be outstanding – if it is then Miss M may wish to contact MoneyBoat to discuss a way forward – if she hasn’t already done so. But I would remind MoneyBoat of its obligation to treat Miss M fairly and with forbearance. Finally, I’ve also considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under Section140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, for the reasons I’ve already given, I don’t think MoneyBoat lent irresponsibly to Miss M or otherwise treated her unfairly in relation to this matter. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that Section 140A would, given the facts of this complaint, lead to a different outcome here. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I’m not upholding Miss M’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Robert Walker Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --