Irresponsible lending

Cool_catz

im not sure if this counts as irresponsible lending case. I have bipolar and was unwell at the time of taking out a loan. I was given a £6000 loan with £8200 to pay off including Interest. I was a monthly payment of £339 over 2 years. I managed to pay 3 months of this but ended up in Korea debt using credit cards etc. they ran a credit check and phoned me because I said I had bipolar. They asked If I was able to manage this loan which I had agreed I could. apart from the credit check there wasnt any bank statements etc looked into. does the credit check and telling them I was able to pay this go against a irresponsible lending complaint. Or will having no bank statement checks count? If thry had seen my account you can see that there wasnt enough each month to show it was manageable plus it also shows completely reckless spending ie hundreds of pounds on gambling sites 

CliveOfIndia

Lenders do not always require sight of bank statements in order to reach their decision - many will do it based upon data contained in your credit file, along with information you supply as regards income.

Cool_catz said:

They asked If I was able to manage this loan which I had agreed I could

On that basis, what reason would they have to believe you couldn't pay it?

Cool_catz said:

I have bipolar and was unwell at the time of taking out a loan.

Did you specify this on the application form at the time you took out the loan?  If not, the lender would have no reason to think there would be any issue.

Isthisforreal99

Presumably you had an income at the point of application?

ManyWays

You will generally get a more helpful response about affordability complaints on the DFW board https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/categories/debt-free-wannabe as the regulars there see more successful wins.

Often with mental health issues such as bipolar, the lender couldn't tell you had a MH problem but the credit itself should have been seen as likely to be unaffordable. So stressing the unaffordability is more helpful than your mental health.

Grumpy_chap

Cool_catz said:

They asked If I was able to manage this loan which I had agreed I could.
apart from the credit check there wasnt any bank statements etc looked into.
If thry had seen my account you can see that there wasnt enough each month to show it was manageable plus it also shows completely reckless spending ie hundreds of pounds on gambling sites 

They asked you if your could manage the loan and you said "yes".
Presumably they asked you for your income / possibly proof of income also.
If they could have looked at your bank statements to see the loan was not manageable, then presumably you could have looked at the same information and reached the same conclusion before responding "yes" to the question about managing the loan.  The lender may well have expected that you made that assessment.

With regard to your health condition, was this information that the lender knew?  The lender cannot take anything into account if they are unaware.

Are you still spending more than you can afford on gambling sites?  Have you sought any support to manage this activity?  That might be the first step to take and bring the other aspects of your finances into a more robust position.

silvercar

Cool_catz said:

im not sure if this counts as irresponsible lending case. I have bipolar and was unwell at the time of taking out a loan. I was given a £6000 loan with £8200 to pay off including Interest. I was a monthly payment of £339 over 2 years. I managed to pay 3 months of this but ended up in Korea debt using credit cards etc. they ran a credit check and phoned me because I said I had bipolar. They asked If I was able to manage this loan which I had agreed I could. apart from the credit check there wasnt any bank statements etc looked into. does the credit check and telling them I was able to pay this go against a irresponsible lending complaint. Or will having no bank statement checks count? If thry had seen my account you can see that there wasnt enough each month to show it was manageable plus it also shows completely reckless spending ie hundreds of pounds on gambling sites 

If it shows hundreds of pounds on gambling sites, you had the money to meet a payment of £339 a month for a loan.

ManyWays

 A lot of the points people are making may not be relevant to an affordability complaint about problem gambling (which is an addiction) where the lender had been told the borrower was bipolar. 
@cool_catz please ask on the DFW board. 

silvercar

ManyWays said:

 A lot of the points people are making may not be relevant to an affordability complaint about problem gambling (which is an addiction) where the lender had been told the borrower was bipolar. 
@cool_catz please ask on the DFW board. 

Whereas I have some sympathy for anyone with an addiction, your post suggestions that no one with a gambling addiction should be allowed any borrowing. This sounds an unfair restriction.

Altior

silvercar said:

ManyWays said:

 A lot of the points people are making may not be relevant to an affordability complaint about problem gambling (which is an addiction) where the lender had been told the borrower was bipolar. 
@cool_catz please ask on the DFW board. 

Whereas I have some sympathy for anyone with an addiction, your post suggestions that no one with a gambling addiction should be allowed any borrowing. This sounds an unfair restriction.

The OP is conceding they lied when the lender called them. 

I have gambling activity in my account, that's certainly not the business of any unsecured lender. Would we want them to check if I was spending money on holidays and restaurants as well? I don't think so. 

These types of posts (OP's) are jarring for me as they are expecting lenders to identify financial difficulties that the applicant is denying at the time. The applicant however, by default has much more knowledge about their own financial affairs than a random lender. 

dumpster_fire2025

silvercar said:

ManyWays said:

 A lot of the points people are making may not be relevant to an affordability complaint about problem gambling (which is an addiction) where the lender had been told the borrower was bipolar. 
@cool_catz please ask on the DFW board. 

Whereas I have some sympathy for anyone with an addiction, your post suggestions that no one with a gambling addiction should be allowed any borrowing. This sounds an unfair restriction.

Unfair in what sense?

I could easily see an FOS case where a person with a clear gambling problem is lent money, blows it and then claims "unfair lending"

Oh, wait https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-2858528.pdf 

Yep, someone complaining about being lent money and then saying they shouldn't have been because they have a "gambling addiction."

Altior

dumpster_fire2025 said:

silvercar said:

ManyWays said:

 A lot of the points people are making may not be relevant to an affordability complaint about problem gambling (which is an addiction) where the lender had been told the borrower was bipolar. 
@cool_catz please ask on the DFW board. 

Whereas I have some sympathy for anyone with an addiction, your post suggestions that no one with a gambling addiction should be allowed any borrowing. This sounds an unfair restriction.

Unfair in what sense?

I could easily see an FOS case where a person with a clear gambling problem is lent money, blows it and then claims "unfair lending"

Oh, wait https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-2858528.pdf 

Yep, someone complaining about being lent money and then saying they shouldn't have been because they have a "gambling addiction."

That's a misinterpretation of the decision.

What they identified was the borrower was purchasing a large amount of crypto, and had a dd bounced. 

They claim the lender should have ben curious in regard to why the borrower would need a high interest loan if they had a large amount of crypto as an asset (upon reviewing the claimant's original complaint).

The ombudsman's decision wasn't anything to do with an alleged gambling addiction, rather that the applicant couldn't prove they were in control of their finances and cope with the repayments, and the lender did not seek enough proof that they could. Explicitly:

I think Loans 2 Go ought to have seen there were signs of financial pressure. I say this because he had a number of credit cards which were very close to their limits – one taken just six months earlier with a limit of £4,000 was up to £3,983 – and another card had been opened just two months earlier. His current account which had an overdraft limit of £650 was showing a balance of £560. I think that these factors taken into account with the discrepancies Loans 2 Go had already identified in his application, ought to have led it to at least look more closely at Mr G’s financial circumstances. It follows that I don’t think Loans 2 Go carried out reasonable and proportionate checks on Mr G’s application. 

ie they would have found in the claimant's favour, whatever they were spending their money on, if it wasn't a liquid  asset. And if it was a liquid asset, why didn't they use that instead of seeking a high interest loan. As they couldn't reasonably demonstrate that they could cope with the repayments.