CarCashPoint Limited · DRN-3918751

The complaint Mrs F complains that CarCashPoint Limited (“CarCashPoint”) lent to her irresponsibly. What happened Mrs F took out three separate fixed sum loans with CarCashPoint between September and November 2019. The first loan was repayable by way of 24 monthly payments of £311 with the total amount repayable under the agreement being £7,466. The second loan was repayable by way of 36 monthly payments of £200 with the total amount repayable under the agreement being £7,217. The third loan was repayable by way of 36 monthly payments of £97 with the total amount repayable under the agreement being £2,736. Each of the loans were settled within a few weeks of being taken out. Mrs F says all three loans were made irresponsibly as she was already struggling financially. CarCashPoint didn’t agree. It said it had reviewed her income and expenditure when she made the application and had checked her credit file. And based on that the loan was affordable. Our adjudicator didn’t recommend the complaint be upheld. She thought CarCashPoint didn’t act unfairly or unreasonably by approving each of the three loans. But Mrs F didn’t agree and so the complaint has been passed 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. CarCashPoint will be familiar with all the rules, regulations and good industry practice we consider when looking at a complaint concerning unaffordable and irresponsible lending. So, I don’t consider it necessary to set all of this out in this decision. Information about our approach to these complaints is set out on our website. I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. Before granting each of these loans, I think CarCashPoint gathered a reasonable amount of evidence and information from Mrs F about her ability to repay. I say this having noted the credit checks it carried out each time, that CarCashPoint verified Mrs F’s income from checking several bank statements she’d given and that Mrs F had also provided a copy of

-- 1 of 2 --

her partner’s payslip. I’ve seen that the checks didn’t reveal any significant adverse information about Mrs F’s recent financial history. Mrs F had previously taken out short term loans but these had been settled by the time she took out the first of the three loans. However, just because I think CarCashPoint carried out proportionate checks for each of these loans, it doesn’t automatically mean it made a fair lending decision on each occasion. So, I’ve thought about what the evidence and information showed. I’ve reviewed the information and evidence CarCashPoint gathered, as well as the information Mrs F provided at the time she made her application for each of these loans. Having done so I’m satisfied that the checks that were completed showed that each agreement was likely to be affordable to Mrs F. From the bank statements she’d provided CarCashPoint saw that Mrs F had an average net monthly earned income of around £1,750. Her total net monthly income was around £3,000. I also note that Mrs F had told CarCashPoint that she shared responsibility for regular outgoings with her partner. Again, Car Cashpoint was able to confirm this by checking the bank statements she’d provided. CarCashPoint also used the available bank statements to verify her total monthly income alongside her regular living expenses. Based on that, together with each check, CarCashPoint calculated that Mrs F had enough disposable income. So it was likely she could afford the monthly repayment amount that was due under each loan. Our adjudicator also reviewed the available information about Mrs F’s financial situation at the time. She found that for the first agreement Mrs F would likely have had a disposable monthly income of around £2,200 per month, with a lower figure of around £1,800 per month for the second and third loans. I’ve reviewed all this information, taking into account Mrs F’s overall level of household income, the daily outgoings and the committed expenditure shown in her bank statements, as well as what Mrs F has said about sharing some household costs with her partner. Having done so, I can see that Mrs F’s level of income and committed expenditure was broadly in line with the information set out in the affordability assessments that CarCashPoint relied on. I therefore agree that each of these loans was likely to have been affordable as she had sufficient disposable income to meet the monthly payments. For these reasons, I don’t think CarCashPoint acted unfairly when approving each of the loans. So whilst I realise this won’t be the outcome Mrs F was hoping for, I don’t consider I’ve seen enough evidence or information to show that each of these logbook loans has been made irresponsibly. I therefore don’t think CarCashPoint needs to take any further action. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs F to accept or reject my decision before 5 April 2023. Michael Goldberg Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --