QuickQuid (QQ) and its smaller brand Pounds To Pocket (P2P), which in February 2019 rebranded as On Stride, have been getting large numbers of affordability complaints from customers asking for refunds of interest.
You may be able to get a refund if you had loans from QQ, P2P or On Stride you couldn’t repay without borrowing again. You can get refunds for all type of loans, including instalment and flexi loans.
In 2018 QuickQuid became the most complained about banking and credit firm in Britain, according to Finanical Ombudsman statistics.
At the end of 2018, there were about 9,000 complaints against QQ and PTP with the Ombudsman. Many had been there for two years as QQ had been refusing to give refunds on loans over 6 years old or for loans given after 2015.
In 2019 the Ombudsman started upholding large numbers of cases. QQ then rejected many of these decisions.
But in August 2019 QQ agreed to pay thousands of outstanding Ombudsman decisions within the next 6 weeks.
Starting your complaint
The main Payday loan refund article has the template letters to use for making these complaints.
If you had loans from both QuickQuid and Pounds to Pocket, you only need to make one complaint, covering both sets of loans.
If you rolled a loan repeatedly or repaid the loan and soon after took out another one, this suggests the loan was not affordable.
One loan complaints can be hard to win, but if your loan was large, as some of the loans from On Stride are, read Getting a refund for a large bad credit loan which has better template letters for your situation.
Getting faster about replying
Lenders have 8 weeks in order to reply to a complaint but some people get a reply from QQ in a couple of weeks.
This doesn’t mean their offers are much better… but as soon as you get a Final Response you can send your case to the Financial Ombudsman.
A list of your loans is usually enclosed with the response to your complaint. If you think it doesn’t look right:
- the dates in the table are American style – mm/dd/yyyy;
- if you have rolled or extended a loan, this often only shows as one loan.
QuickQuid asks for more information – what should you reply?
QuickQuid and Pounds To Pocket usually respond saying:
Please provide us with the following information as soon as possible.
Bank Statements (at the point you took out the loans with us )
Payslips (at the point you took out the loans with us )
Any additional information relating to your financial circumstances (at the point you took out the loans with us)
What is the date of your 1st loan?
How long did it take you to realise that QQ might have been responsible for any financial difficulty you had?
I suspect QQ is hoping that some people will give up because they don’t have the bank statements or they are worried that gambling is showing on their statements. I have no idea why they ask for payslips – the Ombudsman never does. I think they are just trying to make this sound difficult. Also they know when your first loan was!
If you have loans over 6 years old, you should answer the last question – if all your loans are under 6 years you can ignore it. In your reply you should make two points if they apply to you:
- when you were borrowing you knew you had financial problems but you didn’t blame QuickQuid for them as you thought you needed the loans. Say you didn’t know QuickQuid should have made any checks on you so you had no idea there was anything to complain about;
- you found out about these complaints in [month/year] when you [saw a news article, saw a claims company advert on Facebook, were told by a relative, had an email from Wonga or Wageday Advance administrators, whatever actually happened to you – there are no wrong answers.]
For all the other questions, you don’t have to give QQ this information. You could reply:
Thanks for your email. I don’t have my bank statements etc to hand. I will supply them to the Financial Ombudsman if necessary. I want you to continue to investigate my complaint.
Or you could say:
I have asked you to send me a list of my loans – without this date information, I can’t provide the details that you have requested.
Or you could simply ignore it. They have your complaint and have to reply to it.
Some people get good offers even if they don’t send in bank statements. It’s not clear to me that you get a better offer if you do send the details they have asked for – I think they just put your loans through an automatic response generator. As one person said:
To be honest I feel like they didn’t even look at the info.
If you don’t have your bank statements, this would be a good time to get them so you are prepared if the case goes to the Ombudsman. You can get old bank statements, even from closed accounts.
Has your data been deleted?
This is a new problem. In mid-April 2019, QuickQuid seems to have deleted information about some loans over seven years old from their records. See Why is QuickQuid going to delete old customer data?
This won’t be a problem for you if you have the details of your loans, from your email records or from your bank statements. Here tell QuickQuid you can supply them with a list of your loans so they can consider your case. If they refuse to do this, send it straight to the Financial Ombudsman.
If you don’t have all your records, ask QuickQuid if that is their final response and then send the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. You can complain not just that you were given unaffordable loans but that QuickQuid has not treated you fairly by deleting your loan data when it should have known from other customers complaints that you may have a good affordability complaint. Ask for compensation for this.
You may feel that without evidence your case is very weak. But you have an excellent case that QQ has treated you unfairly!
If you have closed your bank account, it can still be possible to get old statements but there may be a limit on how far back you can go. So try to do this as soon as possible – don’t wait for several months until the Financial Ombudsman asks you for them as that may mean there are another few months you can’t get.
QuickQuid’s standard response – designed to put you off
QQ uses a template letter to reply to you.
When you read what they have written, you may feel depressed and that you don’t have a good case. That is what QQ want you to believe! But in many cases the checks QQ did were far from adequate and the wording in their replies may mislead you.
Here are some bits from one recent QQ response (in italics) together with my comments on them.
We have assessed loans funded before FCA regulations were implemented using the “other credit commitment” (OCC) value taken from your credit report at the time of funding and used a reliable average for all remaining expenses.
From some published Ombudsman decisions, it seems that QQ hasn’t kept the details of many credit checks it did for loans before 2014, see this decision for example. You won’t win your case just because QQ can’t produce this information, but if you kept borrowing or rolling loans for months then you shouldn’t worry that QQ has some brilliant way of showing they did great checks.
In assessing loans funded after FCA regulations were implemented, we used validated expenses figures. We arrived at those figures by validating your declared expenses for various categories from your loan application against credit reference agency and Office of National Statistics data.
Here QQ usually has kept more records. But they were validating your expenses against some national averages. that may have been fine for the first few loans, but if you kept borrowing, QQ should have wondered if your real expenses were larger than their estimates. So they should have done extra checks on your later loans, not just kept repeating the same checks.
In assessing whether your loan(s) were affordable, we evaluated whether your total repayment across the loan term was sufficiently less than your total estimated disposable income across the loan term, after taking into account your expenses.
They were estimating your income and your expenses, without verifying them.
Also did you have had one of QQ’s “three month loans” where they only charged the interest for the first two months then the whole of the capital repayment plus another months interest in the third month? If you did, QQ assumed you would save up money in the first and second months. But the Ombudsman often doesn’t think this is fair, for example, here is one Ombudsman decision.
We further assessed affordability by viewing your account history for hardship. If we concluded that any of your prior loans were in hardship status, we evaluated whether any subsequent loans were issued without an adequate gap in time in between.
But QQ doesn’t seem to take account of whether you had to roll a loan, ask for a top-up or ask for extra time to repay a loan, even though that is also evidence that you were struggling.
we closely reviewed whether you took out multiple loans in short succession and whether there were negative changes in your individual circumstances such as a decrease in income and/or an increase in “other credit commitments” between said loans. We further analysed dependency by examining whether you had any loan(s) with numerous extensions or rollovers and if so, whether any subsequent loan was funded in close proximity thereafter.
QQ says they “closely review” these, but often they just seem to reject a case even if often you had to roll a loan or borrow again soon after repaying one.
You may feel this letter doesn’t actually reflect your situation at all – and you are probably right! QQ doesn’t explain why they have refused to refund some loans, or why they picked the ones they did.
How good is QuickQuid’s offer?
QQ do not negotiate – it is a waste of time trying to get them to improve an offer.
If you get a rejection take your case to the Financial Ombudsman unless you only had one or two loans or there were many months between your loans.
If you have been offered £761 (say), that could be good, OK or pretty poor. The decision from QQ is often a refund on what looks like a random selection of your loans! The Ombudsman does not use QQ’s odd criteria.
To tell if your offer is reasonable, add up all the interest and charges you paid on all your loans. If you aren’t sure, ask a question in the comments below.
QuickQuid cases at the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman service is easy to use but has been slow for QQ complaints, but in summer 2019 that seems to be improving as a large number of cases have been decided.
Three things not to worry about:
- you won’t “lose” an offer from QQ if you go to the Financial Ombudsman. So far as I am aware, in every case where someone was offered an amount by QQ the Ombudsman has increased the amount.
- the Ombudsman won’t reject your case because you had a large income or your partner kept bailing you out etc. Lots of people have won these cases. If you kept borrowing then QQ should have realised you were dependent on the loans and stopped lending.
- cases where there was a lot of repeat borrowing and gambling are getting good refunds.
How do they respond to the adjudicator’s decision?
The Adjudicator is the name for the first stage of an Ombudsman complaint. Only 10% of cases have to go to the second stage is when it is looked at by an Ombudsman.
QQ accept have been accepting some adjudicator decisions. But sometimes they offer a lower amount, in which case you have to decide if it’s worth taking that or asking for the case to go to the Ombudsman.
In June one person has just reported being offered c £8,000 by QuickQuid when the adjudicator’s decisions would have been about £9,500 – he decided that was a good enough offer to accept.
Rejecting too many adjudicator decisions
But QQ has been rejecting far too many adjudicator decisions.
The ombudsman could take all these adjudicator decisions through to the second “Ombudsman-level” where a decision is legally binding and QQ have to payout. But that would take a lot of Ombudsman resource to get thousands of cases through at that level. It shouldn’t be needed. the Ombudsman-level is intended for the few difficult cases, not for run-of-the-mill standard decisions.
Both the Ombudsman and QQ’s regulator, the FCA, have been pointing out that the FCA’s rules say a lender has to learn from ombudsman decisions and apply them. For QQ to reject thousands of decisions which are all saying pretty much the same thing is not learning from previous decisions.
August 2019 – QQ are accepting a lot of decisions they had rejected
At last QQ have agreed to accept a large number of decisions they had rejected.
My guess is there will be several thousand cases where QQ has rejected an adjudicator decision. Possibly 5,000. I don’t know if QQ have agreed to accept all of these. Or if they have said they will but in batches. Several readers have been told FOS has a spreadsheet of the decisions that are now being accepted.
This is the letter one reader received from FOS:
As you know, we assessed your complaint and agreed that Casheuronet had done something wrong when it lent to you. So we recommended that it put things right – and explained how we thought it should do that.
Casheuronet has now told us that it accepts our assessment. so it’s going to settle your complaint in line with our recommendation.
You should hear from Casheuronet by six weeks with full details of its settlement.
The comments below this article now have a lot of people saying they have been told this.
I’m optimistic but…
I’m very pleased QQ has agreed to pay out on these decisions.
QQ’s American parent, Enova, released its second-quarter earnings figures last month. Overall they were fine, but there were some comments in the Earnings Conference Call about Enova needing to reach a satisfactory resolution with the FCA and FOS about complaints.
Perhaps they have changed their mind and have decided to make the refund payments in line with FOS decisions. But until this happens, I remain cautious about assuming this has actually been finally settled.
It will be good to see not just these payments being made, but QQ accepting new adjudicator decisions in most cases.
Last updated August 2019