In 2018 and early 2019 QuickQuid was been refusing to consider any affordability complaints about loans made after March 2015.
First it rejects a refund on any of these recent loans when a customer complains. Here is an example of how QuickQuid even classifies these loans separately in its reply to a complaint:
Then, when a customer takes the case to the Financial Ombudsman (FOS), QuickQuid appears to be routinely rejecting adjudicator decisions that include refunds on these post-2015 loans.
This now affects a large number of FOS cases. Many Debt Camel readers are worried about what is going to happen to complaints which include these recent loans.
New FOS decision says QQ should refund recent loans
This week a reader has sent me a final FOS decision, not yet published on the Ombudsman decisions website.
I am only including extracts that relate to the general question of “post 2015 loans” rather than looking at all the details of the specific case.
The number of loans
B was given eight loans by QuickQuid. There was a small one in 2012 which was not considered for a refund, then a long gap. From 2016 to 2018 there were seven loans. Loans 4-8 were all topped up at least once.
Proportionate checks on loans after 2015
The Ombudsman wrote in the decision:
“I think proportionate checks would vary in the circumstances of each loan. So I have looked at each loan individually. In looking at each loan I think it’s reasonable to say a responsible lender would require more assurance the greater the risk to the consumer of the loan being unsustainable. So, for example, I’d expect a lender to seek more assurance by carrying out more detailed checks:
- the higher the loan amount,
- the lower the consumer’s income; or
- the longer the lending relationship.
… Along with its earlier submissions, QuickQuid provided a document setting out, in general terms, how its affordability assessments worked at the time it approved these loans. It has said that (as of 1 March 2015) “all loan offers now meet the FCA rate cap and affordability rules.”
In response to our adjudicator, it said: “In response to FOS’s assessment which recommends that QuickQuid uphold loans which were funded after March 2015, we regret to inform you that we cannot agree to FOS recommendations.”
In short, QuickQuid seems to be saying that because it reviewed its processes and incorporated regulatory changes as it was required to, all loans for all customers granted from 1 March 2015 onwards were granted responsibly and its checks were always proportionate.
I don’t agree with this argument. It doesn’t follow that a firm cannot have treated any customer unfairly simply because it has been authorised and is regulated by the FCA. The FCA isn’t prescriptive about what checks a lender should carry out. … it gives examples in CONC about what might be appropriate. But a lender should still bear in mind both the consumer’s circumstances and the particulars of the loan in question. It doesn’t follow that being authorised means doing the same checks, each and every time, is proportionate – whatever the circumstances of the potential borrower and the particulars of the loan. In effect. QuickQuid is asking me to pre-judge the complaint on the basis of its current lending model. And I am not prepared to do that.
This is not least because there are also other considerations which I am required to take into account when making determinations on complaints.
DISP 3.6.1R says “The Ombudsman will determine a complaint by reference to what is, in his opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.”
So, I am required to consider more than the relevant rules and guidance. I must take these into account. But I will do so in considering the broader questions of whether QuickQuid treated B fairly and reasonably.
… There is nothing in the information QuickQuid has provided to suggested it reacted to B’s changing situation. Simply put, it carried out the same checks for a £1,150 loan with a £1,674 repayment as it did for a much earlier, smaller £200 loan with a £250 repayment. I can’t see how, in B’s circumstances, this was proportionate.”
The decision
The Ombudsman’s decision was that all loans and top-ups after the top up of loan 4 were to be refunded.
Implications for other cases
If you have an affordability complaint which includes some QuickQuid loans after March 2015, I think you can see clearly from the above extracts that FOS does not agree with QQ that these loans must have been correctly checked.
Instead your individual case needs to be considered, including the loan details, your lending history and your circumstances. For QuickQuid to say what amounts to “No refund – after 2015 we got all our lending decisions right” is not a reasonable approach to complaint handling.
I hope QuickQuid will listen to the ombudsman’s comments in this case and apply them to other complaints. That is what the FCA’s rules say it should do.
Comments on this post are now closed.
If you have an issue with QuickQuid, please put a comment on the QQ after administration page.
Get a refund from large loans?
Guarantor loans – more protection needed
Dear CEO – FCA writes to payday lenders
Kris says
What about those loans prior March 2015?
Sara (Debt Camel) says
This article has only looked at loans from March 2015 because QQ has a blanket policy of rejecting them – this is unreasonable and is causing uneccessary hold-ups at FOS.
For loans before that QQ will consider a refund (well assuming they are not more than 6 years old) – you may not like their decision but at least they look at your case!
qwerty says
This is like getting caught for speeding but pleading that it’s impossible that you were speeding because the DVLA gave you a licence, thus you can only have been using your vehicle correctly.
It would be lovely if everyone acted in accordance with their licence (or, in this case, FCA permissions) but we all well know that this just doesn’t happen.
qwerty says
So currently the only loan chains that they are dealing with correctly or fairly are ones which started after 2013 (6 years ago) and ended before 2015?
That’s a very short timeframe given for how long they have actually been lending!
MrC says
maybe not fairly but at least they are looking at them!
Ms b says
I can appreciate this. FOS needs to be better at dealing with complaints though.
QQ will need to compensate a lot of there approval rate is 70%
Carl says
So QQ are refusing to consider 6 year + loans and also those after 2015. In short they are ignoring anything the FOS tells them to do, at least thats how it appears to me.
Where do we as a complainant stand? I can’t afford to sit around waiting for a resolution that will never happen. Surely the FOS should be able to enforce it’s decisions rather than being the eunuch that it is!
Before I get judged as a money grabbing claim chaser I have been forced into an IVA due to irresponsible lending by PDL companies and merely want to settle my debts by paying refunds into, and finishing my IVA. The FOS needlessly delayed handling Wonga claims and my £4K claim will most probably be only a matter a few hundred pounds. I can see QQ and the others going the same way.
Sara (Debt Camel) says
“Surely the FOS should be able to enforce it’s decisions rather than being the eunuch that it is!” FOS decisions are enforceable in court – that is not the problem. The difficulty is large number of QQ complaints that FOS is having to handle – it is currently getting more complaints about QQ than any other UK bank or lender (excluding PPI). These are slowing down the FOS complaints for everyone, including people complaining about other lenders. Many of these complaints are simply unnecessary if QQ starts to settle more complaints itself inline with FOS decisions. I would expect FOS and the FCA to be making these points to QuickQuid forcefully.
Wanting to use refunds to settle your IVA – you are aware that you will need to repay all the debts in your IVA in full, plus the IVA fees? Not just pay in enough to cover the remainder of the monthly payments in your IVA.
Carl says
Thanks for your reply Sara.
I’m fully aware of how the IVA payments work, but thanks for checking. Basically if the PDLs are cleared of or just the principal remains then the amount I pay will increase the 26p in the pound that my other creditors are getting.
Sara (Debt Camel) says
Well that’s nice for your other creditors, but it will probably make no difference at all to you. I just wanted to know you understood that and weren’t going to be disappointed.
Laura says
Hi Sara,
Does this mean Ombudsman are picking up the QQ cases? I’ve been waiting on allocation since September After QQ failed to agree with my adjudicator
Sara (Debt Camel) says
This one was picked up unusually fast.
Mike says
I’ve been waiting the same time, hopefully this will mean that they can start clearing the backlog. I very nearly went back to QQ and accepted their initial offer a couple of days ago.
Sara (Debt Camel) says
No promises, but I don’t think this is going to get into the sort of long-running saga that “over 6 years” loans are in. The QQ argument seems very weak.
Alex says
the adjudicator ruled on my favour back in August 2018. Since then all silent. I called the Fos and they told that they are facing this issue. Very bad
Graham says
Hi
If anyone has received a decision from FOS, that QQ must pay out, and they are refusing to do so, you could report this to the FCA. It’s one of the behaviours that can lead to QQ having their authorisation removed – https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/EG/8/5.html – they’d then not be able to lend. I know if this happened, they might go bust and it’s not something that would see you get money back directly, but it’s worth threatening QQ with it maybe and see how you go.
Failing that you can register a FOS award in court as Sara says earlier, which you can enforce like any other CCJ. You’ll not hear me saying this often but that might be one case where I’d be keen on seeing bailiffs!
Ta,
Graham
John says
My complaint with quick quid has been stalled at every occasion .Truth is my payment at most £500 has cost them that by fighting it on every minor issue .Im now in queue for final ombudsmen decision after they disagreed with adjudicator .I would have settled for a lot less had they just not been so bloody minded ..I’VE had to admit to a lot personally whilst they merely say they are infallible because of their so called checks when they clearly know they weren’t enough .I would have thought if certain criteria proved to them is met by the claimant make an offer save the company some money.save the fsa some work so they can concentrate on the other cases with other lenders .I also think that if there was a penalty for time wasting it would wake them up .maybe they should automatically lose all defence on all the loans to each individual .!
Ms B says
But the ombudsman is going to most likely agree with the adjudicator.
Fingers crossed though I hope it works out
John says
Funnily enough two default notices within a month when not having heard from them in 15 months .No need to guess at reasoning behind that .As the amount I owe them is considerably less than what they should pay out .I strongly suspect they may have to remove them anyway. Seems rather petty and not a little vindictive .
Baz says
Hi Sara. I had adjudicators decision on qq early Dec and qq rejected. Adjudicator is saying they are in discussions with qq. Should i be sending this to ombudsman in the mean time? I havnt as of yet.
John says
Has anyone had an ombudsman verdict against Quick Quid in the last two months ? I havnt heard any positive decisions with winning complaints and money being paid.Have qq managed to block paying anything out in this time ??
Sara (Debt Camel) says
There are some published Ombudsman decisions (https://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/) in the last two months. Not many, but there is normally a gap of 6 weeks until decisions are added to that website, so that is what I would expect.
I havem’t heard of QQ refusing to pay out after an ombudsman’s decision.