PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED · DRN-6141502

The complaint Mr A complains that PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED trading as Quidmarket lent to him irresponsibly when they provided him with two personal loans. What happened In 2025, Mr A was provided with two loans by Quidmarket. I’ve included a table below showing more detail around the lending agreements. Loan date Amount borrowed Term Repayments Total repayable January 2025 £342 25 weeks £27.30 £682.50 September 2025 £1,000 25 weeks £78.06 £1,951.50 In late 2025 Mr A complained. In summary, he said Quidmarket had irresponsibly lent to him and that sufficient checks – to ensure his affordability status – hadn’t been undertaken. Quidmarket didn’t uphold the complaint. They said, in summary, that they had carried out checks proportionate to the amount being lent; those checks hadn’t revealed any concerns, and on that basis, the loan had been granted. So, they were satisfied they had lent responsibly. However, they agreed, based on a high number of gambling transactions present at the time he took out loan 1, to uphold his complaint about both loan applications. Mr A remained unhappy; while he maintained that Quidmarket were wrong to have lent to him, he reiterated the high volume of gambling transactions present and said it should have been clear to Quidmarket that he was gambling. So, in addition to the redress offered, he felt he should also receive compensation. So, he referred his complaint to this Service for independent review. An Investigator here considered what had happened; having done so, he was satisfied Quidmarket had lent responsibly. However, he noted that Quidmarket had since agreed to put matters right for Mr A in line with our service’s approach to such matters when a complaint is upheld; which, included removing interest and charges, and refunding any payments over and above the capital sum borrowed along with 8% simple interest, as well as removing any adverse information in respect of the loans from Mr A’s credit file. So, in the circumstances, he was satisfied Quidmarket had done more than enough to put things right. Mr A didn’t accept the redress offered and maintained that he should also receive compensation. So, as no agreement has been reached by the parties, Mr A’s complaint has now 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Having done so, while this will no doubt disappoint Mr A, I agree with the findings of our Investigator and for broadly the same reasons. I’ll explain why. Looking first at the lending decisions, I haven’t set out a great deal of detail here. That’s because Quidmarket have already taken into account the level of gambling present on Mr A’s bank statements at the time the first loan was provided, and have agreed to put matters right, in line with our service’s approach to such matters when a complaint is upheld. It might be useful to explain, that when looking at a complaint about lending - or any other complaint in fact - our role when something has gone wrong is, so far as is reasonably practicable, to try and put the customer back in the position they would have been before that wrongdoing took place. That’s not always possible as matters escalate, and some unintended consequences can’t necessarily be reversed. But in cases of irresponsible lending, our general approach at a broad level, is that had the lending not taken place, the customer would not have accrued the interest and charges applied to the loan when it was taken out. So, we would expect these to be refunded. Equally, as well as the business putting things right as set out above, it’s important to note that had the loans not been approved, a customer would have never received the capital borrowed. So, in putting matters right, the money borrowed would also need to be returned to the lender – in this case – Quidmarket. There are also additional considerations, such as the 8% simple interest we apply to the refund of any payments over and above the capital borrowed, and the removal of adverse information from a customer’s credit file. In this instance, despite the investigator having found the lending was responsible, Quidmarket have already agreed to put matters right in the way we would expect them to, had we found they were wrong to have provided the credit. So, even if I were to carry out an assessment of Quidmarket’s lending decisions (which I haven’t); and were to conclude that Quidmarket were wrong to have lent to Mr A (which I don’t); broadly speaking, I would only expect Quidmarket to put things right in line with our service’s approach to such matters. This would be to remove any amounts over and above the capital sum borrowed from the amount owed. If this results in a refund due, this should be paid, along with 8% interest and the removal of any adverse credit file information. If a balance remains however, a suitable repayment plan should be agreed, and any adverse information should be removed at the point the capital sum borrowed is repaid. Having reviewed Quidmarket’s Final Response Letter, they have agreed already, to do what I have set out above. So, there is no need for me to carry out an assessment of their lending decisions. That’s because any finding I might make here (even a finding in Mr A’s favour), would not lead me to conclude that Quidmarket should do any more than they have already agreed to. So, in the circumstances, I’m satisfied the full redress they have offered is reasonable. I appreciate Mr A is unhappy with the outcome reached, but I’d like to reassure him, that the redress Quidmarket has offered, is in line with what we would award if we were to decide the complaint in his favour. It’s for these reasons I’m satisfied no further assessment is due here. I appreciate Mr A feels he should also receive compensation for Quidmarket’s failings. But in the circumstances, I’m satisfied the redress already offered by Quidmarket does enough to put things right for Mr A, and I’m not persuaded further compensation in the circumstances is required. Finally, I’ve considered whether the relationship between Mr A and Quidmarket might have been unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, I’m satisfied the redress I have directed below results in fair compensation for Mr A in the circumstances of his complaint. I’m satisfied, based on what I’ve seen, that no additional award would be

-- 2 of 3 --

appropriate in this case. Putting things right If they haven’t already, Quidmarket should add up the total repayments Mr A has made and deduct these from the total amount of money he received: a) if this results in Mr A having paid more than he received, any overpayments should be refunded along with 8% simple interest (calculated from the date the overpayments were made until the date of settlement). † Quidmarket should also remove all adverse information regarding this account from Mr A’s credit file. b) if any capital balance remains outstanding, then Quidmarket should arrange an affordable and suitable payment plan with Mr A. Once Mr A has cleared the balance, any adverse information in relation to the account should be removed from his credit file. If Quidmarket has sold either debt to a third party, it should arrange to either buy back the debt/debts from the third party or liaise with them to ensure the redress set out above is carried out promptly. † HM Revenue & Customs requires Quidmarket to take off tax from this interest. Quidmarket must give Mr A a certificate showing how much tax it’s taken off if he asks for one. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold Mr A’s complaint. And I direct PROPEL HOLDINGS (UK) LIMITED trading as Quidmarket to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Brad McIlquham Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --