Some lenders responding to affordability complaints by saying your application wasn’t accurate about your income or expenses when you took out the loans.
They are doing this to try to put you off taking your case to the Financial Ombudsman. That may save them a lot of money!
Let’s see why applications may have been inaccurate and whether this is a problem for your complaint.
Most of the examples here are for payday loans, but this also applies to other bad credit loans, car finance, guarantor loans etc.
Many people don’t know their expenses
I sometimes ask trainee debt advisers to complete an Income & Expenditure sheet. After trying, they realise it isn’t as easy as it sounds! It’s common for people to:
- forget annual expenses and variable costs (car costs, Christmas, school uniforms, school trips etc);
- not be sure what to do if they pay some expenses and their partner pay others;
- have little idea what they spend on food and other supermarket items;
- not know what to do if they are on zero-hours contracts or have variable self-employed income.
Not asked about most expenses
Some lenders ask very little about your expenses. Before 2015 it was sometimes nothing at all!
This can make it harder for you to give “accurate numbers” as you may not think of things such as clothes or car servicing costs which don’t happen every month if you are asked to give a figure for your regular financial commitments.
Almost always people miss things off or underestimate expenses. But some lenders seem to assume they can safely lend £250 if the customer’s I&E shows £450 spare.
People often don’t put down large amounts for cigarettes, alcohol, drugs or gambling. Partly because they think they would be refused a loan but often because they hope that next month things won’t be so bad.
You may have put in a higher income hoping to get more hours at work.
Not accurate about other debts
You may have missed off debt repayments because you knew you wouldn’t be able to afford them so you wouldn’t pay them – is that an expense or not?
Often people are asked on an application to list their other debt payments or credit commitments. But lots of people don’t think this includes a payday loan that will be repaid the next month, because it’s not a regular payment like a bank loan or credit card.
For an example, see this Ombudsman decision about a QuickQuid loan:
QuickQuid says it asked Mr B about his other payday loans as part of the application process. But as far as I can see from the relevant screenshot, the examples of what should be included in “Monthly Credit Commitments” are enclosed within a drop down menu. I also think that there’s a difference between a credit commitment that’s due to be paid each month and a payday loan which is usually a one-off commitment.
So the Ombudsman agrees that someone may not have realised they should have listed payday loans.
Here is another example: an Ombudsman decision about a Myjar loan:
I appreciate that MYJAR asked Ms B about her monthly credit repayments, but I agree with the adjudicator that the question wasn’t sufficiently clear for her to have realised that she also needed to provide information about her short term lending as well as her long term credit repayments.
Missing figures or underestimating isn’t always deliberate
If you aren’t good with money or you had mental health problems, you may not have been able to clearly think about your finances.
Or you may simply have filled out the application without much thought. Some lenders pride themselves on this – up to 2016, the Amigo website was proudly saying you could complete its application process in 5 minutes! You don’t see lenders saying that you should take your time and consider the figures carefully, look at your bank statements and come back and finish the application in a few days…
You may have given pretty accurate figures when you first borrowed, but not gone back and changed them if your income dropped or your expenses went up:
- for some people this will have been because they never thought about it and didn’t really focus on those parts of the new application;
- it can be very easy if you are stressed or in a hurry to just tick boxes without paying much attention. Especially if the lender said you could apply for a top-up;
- some lenders pre-ticked boxes or filled in your previous numbers if you were applying for a new loan, so it was even easier to accept them without thinking if they had changed.
“I never said that!”
Sometimes people are astonished at the very high income the lender has recorded them as saying. This may be because your £1,500 monthly income has been recorded as weekly. It could be an error by the lender or by you. But if it was an error by you, the lender should have wondered why someone earning £6,000 in a month needed to take out a payday loan at all!
If you were never asked for expense details, you may have no idea where the lender got the figures from.
Sometimes people applied for a loan online but were then phoned up by the lender who talked through details and may have changed some figures. But the customer was never sent the new figures.
For applications in a shop, some existing customers have said they were given a completed form to sign to get the money – they weren’t asked if anything had changed.
If you disagree that you ever gave the numbers the lender says you did, explain this to the Ombudsman.
Lenders know people’s applications may not be complete or accurate
Payday lenders know people applying for a loan may be desperate and so may exaggerate their income or not mention their real expenses. And so does the regulator who says ( CONC 5.2A.36) say that a firm shouldn’t give a loan if they know or should suspect that the customer hasn’t been truthful when applying for the loan.
In this decision on a Sunny case, the Ombudsman summarises the approach FOS usually take:
certain factors might point to the fact that a lender should fairly and reasonably have done more to establish that any lending was sustainable for the consumer. These would include where:
- a consumer’s income is low or the amount to be repaid takes up a substantial portion of their income
- the amount, or amounts, due to be repaid are higher
- there is a larger number and/or frequency of loans
- the period of time during which a customer has been provided with borrowing is long.
So if your first loan was large that should have been looked at closely.
And if you were continuing to borrow, when your income and expenses suggested you shouldn’t be in financial problems all the time, the lender should have realised that for whatever reason, there was something wrong with the details they had. A responsible lender would either have stopped lending at that point or looked more closely at your credit record or asked for other evidence such as your bank statements.
When should the lender have realised the figures may be wrong?
This depends on what else the lender knew.
If your lender credit checked you, they should have taken that into account. So if your credit account showed defaults, arrangements to pay or other problems this doesn’t seem compatible with an I&E that showed you had a lot of spare income and you can argue the lender should have suspected your I&E was not correct.
If you carried on borrowing for along time. For later loans, the lender will know more and should consider that in deciding whether to lend again. Your I&E may show a lot of spare income but if you are rolling loans or borrowing every month, that suggests you are becoming dependent on these loans. And that suggests there is something wrong with an I&E if it shows a lot of spare income. See this case where the Ombudsman says:
Before loans three and four, MYJAR should’ve asked Mr S for not only his normal monthly income but also his normal monthly living costs – not just his housing costs – and other regular financial commitments.
Before loans five to fourteen, MYJAR should’ve carried out a full review of Mr S’s finances.
If your I&E varied a lot, this should also have been a warning flag to the lender that perhaps there was something wrong with the figures. Here is an Ombudsman’s comment in this sort of situation:
However, when Mrs D applied for her fourth loan, I don’t think Wonga should have relied on the expenditure figures provided by Mrs D… Although it appears affordable, Mrs D was saying her only expenditure was on food (£50) and utilities (£100). This compares with her first loan application when she also had expenditure on rent (£200) and credit (£100). Indeed £50 on food per month for herself and two dependants also seems unlikely.
The letter from the lender feels threatening
Sometimes lenders go further than just saying your loan looked affordable on the figures you gave. They suggest that if you take it further they will be investigating your application, or asking you to explain the figures or reporting you.
This basically seems to be a bluff, again to get you to drop the complaint.
I have seen this happen to a lot of people and so far no-one has had further problems about it!
As a generalisation, if the income or expenditure details on your loan application weren’t right, the payday lender can’t be blamed for giving you the first couple of loans – unless they were large, in which case even the first loan should have been looked at carefully.
But if you carried on borrowing, the payday lender should have considered if the I&E figures were wrong. You can win affordability complaints at the Ombudsman even if the lender dismissed your complaint and said your application was not accurate.