DRN-6242389

The complaint Madison CF UK Limited trading as 118 118 Money provided Mr D with a £1,250 loan in May 2024. Mr D says the credit was provided irresponsibly. What happened The details of this complaint are well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here. The facts aren’t in dispute, so I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. We’ve set out our general approach to complaints about unaffordable or irresponsible lending on our website, and I’ve taken this into account in deciding Mr D’s case. I’ve decided the credit was provided fairly because: • I think the checks 118 118 Money did before providing the credit were reasonable and proportionate given the credit it offered and what it knew about Mr D’s financial situation. • 118 118 Money’s checks showed Mr D was employed part time with a monthly income of £1,249 and 118 118 Money verified this using an industry tool. He declared that he was living with parents. Mr D’s credit report showed no county court judgements, bankruptcies or defaults and his accounts were up to date. His total outstanding debts were £2,929 and his utilisation of his revolving credit balances was 16%. Therefore, I do not find Mr D’s credit report suggested he was struggling financially or that he was overindebted. While I note Mr D was using his overdrafts, I do not find this was at a level that required further questions to be asked, or meant the loan shouldn’t be provided. • Mr D’s credit check showed his payments for loans were around £161 and including amounts for payments for his revolving credit and overdrafts along with estimates for his other costs, resulted in total costs of around £869. This left around £380 for the loan repayments (around £89) and any unforeseen costs. • I note Mr D’s comments about his gambling being shown in his account statements. However, I do not think that 118 118 Money was required to request copies of his bank statements and I have nothing to suggest that 118 118 Money should have been aware of this before lending. • Based on the information 118 118 Money gathered and what it knew about Mr D’s circumstances, there was nothing to suggest Mr D was likely to be unable to sustainably repay what he was being lent.

-- 1 of 2 --

• I don’t think 118 118 Money acted unfairly in any other way. This means I don’t think 118 118 Money did anything wrong when it provided the loan to Mr D. I’ve also considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, for the reasons I’ve already given, I don’t think 118 118 Money lent irresponsibly to Mr D or otherwise treated him unfairly. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that s.140A or anything else would, given the facts of this complaint, lead to a different outcome here. I know this isn’t the outcome Mr D hoped for. But for the reasons above, I’m not asking 118 118 Money to do anything to put things right. My final decision My final decision is that I’m not upholding Mr D’s complaint about Madison CF UK Limited trading as 118 118 Money. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 30 April 2026. Jane Archer Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --