FCA affordability requirements
Lenders are expected to consider creditworthiness and affordability risk before entering regulated credit agreements. Checks should be proportionate to the circumstances.
If a lender failed to carry out proper affordability checks, encouraged repeat borrowing, or lent despite signs of financial difficulty, you may have grounds for an unaffordable lending complaint.
A claim may arise where a lender provided credit without making a proportionate assessment of whether you could sustainably afford repayments. The FCA describes high-cost credit as including products such as high-cost short-term credit, home-collected credit, rent-to-own, guarantor and logbook loans.
Lenders are expected to consider creditworthiness and affordability risk before entering regulated credit agreements. Checks should be proportionate to the circumstances.
A responsible lender should not ignore signs of repeat borrowing, existing debt, missed payments, vulnerability or reliance on further credit to make repayments.
The Ombudsman considers complaints where consumers say credit was unaffordable or irresponsibly provided, and looks at what checks were carried out and what those checks showed.
Common failings include lending despite obvious pressure on household finances, encouraging repeat borrowing, or making checks that were too light for the level of risk.
Structured review of affordability indicators, lender behaviour and available evidence.
No upfront success fee. If compensation is recovered, our success fee is 25% plus VAT.
Clear disclosures, documented authority and secure handling of client information.
Dedicated case managers support clients through the complaint process.
Submit one claim journey covering every lender you remember, including unknown account numbers.
Digital signature, address lookup, bank statement upload and CRM handoff for case handlers.
High-cost credit complaints have resulted in refunds, balance adjustments and credit file corrections across the market. Some lenders have entered administration or redress processes, so outcomes depend on lender status and available routes.
Where firms have failed or entered schemes, consumers may still have complaint routes, but recoveries can differ from active lender complaints.
Ombudsman outcomes often consider whether the lender’s checks were proportionate and whether lending was sustainable.
Where lending should not have been provided, correction or removal of adverse information can be part of redress.
Sources: FCA high-cost credit and consumer credit; Financial Ombudsman unaffordable lending; FCA using claims management companies.
Examples below are illustrative journeys showing the types of issues our specialists look for. Actual outcomes depend on lender records and evidence.
A customer borrowed repeatedly over several months. The review focused on whether the pattern showed dependency and whether checks should have escalated.
A borrower was approved despite existing debt and difficulty meeting household bills. The assessment considered affordability for both borrower and guarantor.
Multiple loans were taken in succession. The claim summary highlighted repeat lending, repayment pressure and vulnerability indicators.
We only publish values we can support from current company data or fixed fee terms. Compensation recovered, average refund and success rate should be added once verified finance/reporting data is available.
Complaints about credit you could not sustainably afford.
Repeat payday lending, rollovers and short-term high-cost credit.
Claims about poor affordability or creditworthiness checks.
Doorstep loans, guarantor loans, logbook loans and instalment loans.
Regulated credit complaints where lender checks may have been inadequate.
Complaints that may need escalation if the lender rejects or fails to resolve them.