Salad Finance Limited · DRN-6221427

The complaint Mr D complains that Salad Finance Limited lent irresponsibly when it approved his loan application. What happened Mr D applied for a Salad Finance loan of £1,200 plus interest of £721.32 over an 18 month term in December 2024. Monthly repayments were £106.74. In his application, Mr D said he was employed full time and renting privately. As part of the application process, Salad Finance requested access to Mr D’s bank account for the preceding three months via Open Banking. Mr D’s Open Banking data, that set out his current account history, was sent to Salad Finance to review. Salad Finance completed an income and expenditure assessment using the Open Banking data provided to check the affordability of the loan repayments. Salad Finance found Mr D had a disposable income of around £1,500 remaining each month after his essential outgoings were met. Salad Finance approved Mr D’s application, issued the loan funds and set up monthly repayments of £106.74. In late 2025 Mr D contacted Salad Finance to discuss his loan repayments and ask for support. Salad Finance advised it could discuss Mr D’s circumstances with him to see what support was offered. Mr D went on to complain that Salad Finance lent irresponsibly and it issued a final response. Salad Finance set out the basis on which Mr D’s application was approved. Salad Finance didn’t agree it lent irresponsibly to Mr D and didn’t uphold his complaint. An investigator at this service looked at Mr D’s complaint. They thought Salad Finance completed proportionate checks before approving Mr D’s application and that its decision to lend was reasonable based on the information it obtained. The investigator wasn’t persuaded Salad Finance lent irresponsibly and didn’t uphold Mr D’s complaint. Mr D asked to appeal and said that when his application to Salad Finance was made he was using high cost credit and payday loans to support himself. Mr D also said his Open Banking data should’ve shown he was relying on his overdraft and other forms of credit. As Mr D asked to appeal, his complaint has been passed to me to make a 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. Before agreeing to lend, the rules say Salad Finance had to complete reasonable and proportionate checks to ensure Mr D could afford to repay the debt in a sustainable way. These affordability checks needed to be focused on the borrower’s circumstances. The

-- 1 of 3 --

nature of what’s considered reasonable and proportionate will vary depending on various factors like: - The amount of credit; - The total sum repayable and the size of regular repayments; - The duration of the agreement; - The costs of the credit; and - The consumer’s individual circumstances. That means there’s no set list of checks a lender must complete. But lenders are required to consider the above points when deciding what’s reasonable and proportionate. Lenders may choose to verify a borrower’s income or obtain a more detailed picture of their circumstances by reviewing bank statements for example. More information about how we consider irresponsible lending complaints can be found on our website. As noted above, when Mr D applied for his Salad Finance loan he gave some basic details about his circumstances in the application. Salad Finance also asked for Open Banking data showing the full movements of his current account over the previous three months. That means Salad Finance had full access to Mr D’s income and outgoings in the months before his application was made. Salad Finance has provided a copy of the income and expenditure assessment it completed on receipt of Mr D’s Open Banking data. I’ve reviewed the assessment completed by Salad Finance and can see it took into account Mr D’s regular income, which was between £2,825 and £4,010 a month. Salad Finance also looked at outgoings for items like communications, supermarket spending, insurance, fuel, public transport and existing credit repayments. The income and expenditure assessment used was detailed and factored all Mr D’s regular income and outgoings. I can see Salad Finance reached the view that Mr D had around £1,500 remaining each month after his existing commitments and priority outgoings were met. I’m satisfied that was a reasonable conclusion following a detailed review of Mr D’s application and Open Banking data. Mr D has explained he was using high cost credit to make ends meet at the time he applied to Salad Finance. Looking at the Open Banking data, I can see Mr D took a £500 high cost credit loan around three months before his application to Salad Finance. I can also see Mr D made monthly repayments of £137.03 to cover that borrowing in the three months before his application. With that being said, I didn’t think Mr D’s information showed he was relying on high cost credit to make ends meet. Mr D’s outgoings were being met by his income each month with sufficient surplus remaining to cover his other expenses in addition to a new loan payment of £106.74. In my view, Salad Finance completed proportionate lending checks and found the loan repayments were sustainable for Mr D. And I’m satisfied the decision to approve Mr D’s application was reasonable based on the information Salad Finance obtained. I’m sorry to disappoint Mr D but I haven’t been persuaded Salad Finance lent irresponsibly. I’ve considered whether the business acted unfairly or unreasonably in any other way including whether the relationship might have been unfair under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, for the reasons I’ve already given, I don’t think Salad Finance lent irresponsibly to Mr D or otherwise treated him unfairly. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that Section 140A or anything else would, given the facts of this complaint, lead to a different outcome here.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My decision is that I don’t uphold Mr D’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Marco Manente Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --