UPDATE – on 25 October, CasheEuroNet which owns ate QuickQuid, Pounds To Pocket and On Stride brands went into administration.
See QuickQuid goes into administration – what will happen for details. That article will be updated with any more news.
This article will not be kept up to date.
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.
Summary – QuickQuid complaints
QuickQuid is now the most complained about banking and credit firm in Britain (ignoring PPI), 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 these 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. These are being referred to as “the spreadsheet complaints” as many customers were told by FOS they “were on the spreadsheet“.
How to start a complaint (this no longer applies now QQ is in administration)
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.
A list of your loans is usually enclosed with the response to your complaint.
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 was 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.
QuickQuid cases at the Ombudsman (you can no longer send a QQ case to 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.
This is why in August QuickQuid agreed to accept several thousand adjudicator decision it had previously rejected.
QQ started to send emails with the refund amounts and asking for people’s bank account details in September.
Good news that QQ is paying out on some FOS decisions but…
I’m very pleased QQ agreed to pay out on these decisions. Not just for those customers getting their refund at long last, but because by removing a large number of complaints from the queue for an ombudsman, I hope a lot of other FOS complaints will move forward faster.
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. It’s not clear what they mean by this.
Enova’s third-quarter figures contained the announcement that they would be closing their UK business due to “regulatory uncertainty”.
Updated October 2019
Comments on this article are now closed. Please put any questions on
QuickQuid goes into administration – what will happen