Logbook Money Limited · DRN-3963818

The complaint Mrs S complains that Logbook Money Limited (“Logbook Money””) lent to her irresponsibly. What happened In November 2019 Mrs S took out a fixed sum loan with Logbook Money for £1,500. The loan was repayable by way of 18 monthly payments of £233.35. The total amount payable under the agreement was £4,200.30. Mrs S started getting into difficulty with meeting the repayments in or around March 2020. The loan was settled by way of a payment made by Mrs S’s car insurer in November 2020. Mrs S says the loan was made irresponsibly and wasn’t affordable. She wasn’t working at the time and her sole income was state benefits. Logbook Money didn’t agree. It said it had reviewed Mrs S’s bank statement and income and expenditure when she made the application and had found the loan was affordable. Our adjudicator didn’t recommend the complaint be upheld. He thought Logbook Money didn’t act unfairly or unreasonably by approving the loan. Mrs S didn’t agree and so the complaint has been passed to me for a final 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. Logbook Money will be familiar with all the rules, regulations and good industry practice we consider when looking at a complaint concerning unaffordable and irresponsible lending. So, I don’t consider it necessary to set all of this out in this decision. Information about our approach to these complaints is set out on our website. I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t comment on any specific point it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it, but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. Before granting the finance, I think Logbook Money gathered a reasonable amount of evidence and information from Mrs S about her ability to repay. I say this having noted that, whilst it isn’t Logbook Money’s practice to obtain credit check information, it did instead carry out other checks. Those checks included obtaining details about three months of bank statements and also asking Mrs S to provide details of her income and expenditure. I think, taken together, this information was enough to show whether Mrs S would be able to repay the agreement sustainably. However, just because I think it carried out proportionate checks,

-- 1 of 2 --

it doesn’t automatically mean it made a fair lending decision. So, I’ve thought about what the evidence and information showed. I’ve reviewed the information and evidence Logbook Money gathered, as well as the information Mrs S provided at the time she made her application for the loan. Having done so I’m satisfied that the checks that were completed showed that the agreement was likely to be affordable to Mrs S. I say this having noted that Mrs S told Logbook Money in the income and expenditure details she gave them that she had a monthly income of £1,300, made up of state benefits. The bank statement information I’ve seen broadly supports that. So I think, having checked her bank statements, Logbook Money took note of the level of benefits she was receiving prior to making her application and also her regular living expenses. Based on that and also her credit check, it calculated that Mrs S had enough disposable income. So it looked very likely she could afford the monthly repayment. I agree with our adjudicator that, having reviewed this information and taking into account Mrs S’s level of income, her daily outgoings and the committed expenditure shown in the credit reports I’ve seen, she had sufficient disposable income. That means the loan was likely to have been affordable for her. For these reasons, I don’t think Logbook Money acted unfairly when approving the finance application. Did Logbook Money act unfairly or unreasonably in some other way? Mrs S has said that Logbook Money didn’t tell her about the cost of the loan. She also says she wasn’t given any documentation. From what I’ve seen about the process operated by Logbook Money, it’s likely that details about the cost of the loan would have been explained to her after she’d made her application. Of course, I’ve no way of knowing for sure what was said at the time, but given that I’ve seen a copy of the agreement she was given and signed at the time, I also think it’s likely she had time to look over the agreement and ask any questions before signing it. I also think Logbook Money acted fairly when it later agreed to extend the term of Mrs S’s contract from 18 to 30 months. This reduced her monthly repayments and Logbook Money didn’t add any additional interest over the term. I would like to add that I am sorry to hear about the difficult family circumstances Mrs S was going through at the time. And whilst I realise this won’t be the outcome Mrs S was hoping for, I don’t consider I’ve seen enough evidence or information to show that the logbook loan was made irresponsibly. I therefore don’t think Logbook Money needs to take any further action. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs S to accept or reject my decision before 2 May 2023. Michael Goldberg Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --