Match the Cash Limited · DRN-6229481

The complaint Mr J complains that Match the Cash Limited trading as Guarantormyloan.tv lent to him irresponsibly when they provided him with a personal loan. He’s also unhappy with other elements of the service they provided. What happened In 2021, Mr J was provided with a personal loan by Match the Cash. The loan was for £10,000 and was repayable over 36 months, with monthly repayments of around £484. Mr J’s father was added to the loan as a guarantor. In 2025, Mr J complained. In summary, he said Match the Cash had irresponsibly lent to him and that sufficient checks – to ensure his affordability status – hadn’t been undertaken. He was also unhappy that Match the Cash had reported a default against his credit file, and that a further copy of the default notice was sent to both him and his father, at a later date, unnecessarily - he felt the overall service was poor. Further concerns were also raised about the impact the service provided had on the guarantor. Match the Cash didn’t uphold the complaint. They said, in summary, that in relation to the lending decision, they had carried out checks proportionate to the amount being lent; those checks hadn’t revealed any concerns, and on that basis, the loan had been granted. So, they were satisfied they had lent responsibly. In respect of the default, they said there were a number of missed payments and a number of payment plans that had failed, so they were satisfied they had reported this correctly. So, overall, they were satisfied with the service they had provided. Unhappy with their response, Mr J brought his complaint to our service. An investigator considered the complaint, and, having done so, initially concluded that the business had not acted unfairly in defaulting the account. But he said that sending a further copy of the default notice in November 2024 would have caused undue distress. So he recommended that £100 be paid to Mr J in compensation, which Match the Cash accepted. But Mr J remained unhappy and maintained that more should be done to put things right. Further arguments were made by both parties, and it was established that a core part of Mr J’s complaint hadn’t been considered, that being the initial lending decision. So, in January 2026, a further view was issued. In summary, it said that Match the Cash were wrong to have lent to Mr J, based on the level of existing debt he’d already accumulated at the time he applied, and it was recommended that they put things right in line with our service’s approach to such matters; which included removing interest and charges, and refunding any payments over and above the capital sum borrowed - along with 8% simple interest. It set out that if the capital was yet to be repaid, Match the Cash should work with Mr J to agree a suitable repayment plan; and, that once repaid, any adverse information recorded in respect of the loan should be removed from Mr J’s credit file. Mr J accepted the investigator’s findings on this point, but Match the Cash didn’t. And they maintained their position that their checks were proportionate and showed the loan to have been affordable for Mr J.

-- 1 of 4 --

So, as no agreement has been reached, Mr J’s complaint has now been passed to me to decide. 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. Having done so, I agree with the findings of our Investigator and for broadly the same reasons. I’ll explain why. Mr J has set out his position at some length, and I’d like to pass on my thanks to him for the level of detail he went into in providing this information, but I’ve not commented on each and every point raised. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I consider to be the crux of the matter. I hope Mr J won’t take that as a discourtesy, but our role is to be an informal service and my approach here is simply to align with that purpose. Looking first at Match the Cash’s decision to lend, the rules and regulations in place at the time Mr J was provided with the credit, required Match the Cash to carry out a reasonable and proportionate assessment of whether Mr J could afford to repay what he owed in a sustainable manner. This is sometimes referred to as an ‘affordability assessment’ or ‘affordability check’. The checks had to be ‘borrower’ focused. This means Match the Cash had to think about whether repaying the credit sustainably would cause difficulties or adverse consequences for Mr J. In other words, it wasn’t enough for Match the Cash to just consider the likelihood of getting the funds back – they also had to consider the impact of any repayments on Mr J. Checks also had to be ‘proportionate’ to the specific circumstances of the lending. In general, what constitutes a proportionate affordability check will be dependent on a number of factors including – but not limited to – the particular circumstances of the consumer (e.g. their financial history, current situation and outlook, any indications of vulnerability or financial difficulty) and the amount/type/cost of credit they were seeking. I’ve kept all of this in mind when thinking about whether Match the Cash did what they needed to before agreeing to provide the above loan. Here, before agreeing to lend, Match the Cash took details of Mr J’s monthly income, along with details of what his income was increasing to as a result of having accepted a new job offer, shortly before the lending decision. For their affordability assessment however, they exercised caution and took Mr J’s current income into account. They then used a combination of credit check results, banks statements, statistical data, and answers to further questions put to Mr J about his income, before deciding to lend. Based on the answers to these questions, they concluded that Mr J had around £800 in disposable income after their monthly repayment. So, they were satisfied the loan was affordable. While I accept the findings reached by Match the Cash and can understand on a pure pounds and pence basis why the loan appeared affordable, I think there were other factors at play here that should have prompted Match the Cash to realise that further lending may not have been appropriate. The income and expenditure check Match the Cash ran, showed that Mr J, while a high earner, had in the region of £270,000 in outstanding credit excluding his mortgage, with payments totalling around £5,300 a month. Furthermore, of the credit Mr J had, there were recent loans taken out in the lead up to the agreement, as well as two motor HP agreements

-- 2 of 4 --

taken out less than six months prior to the lending decision, with balances totalling over £200,000. In addition to the above, some of Mr J’s revolving credit was now showing balances that had exceeded their credit limits significantly and seemingly had been for a number of months prior. Given the sharp increase in Mr J’s overall indebtedness in the lead up to taking out this loan; and noting that Mr J’s total monthly credit commitments equated to around 70% of his monthly income; and, given the fact Mr J was now showing signs of starting to struggle to maintain his existing credit line with its terms (as an example - one of his credit cards with a £15,000 limit recently had a missed a payment, and had an outstanding balance £17,689 at the time of application), in my view, indicates that a concerning trend was growing. So while, broadly speaking, the repayments may well have appeared affordable for Mr J at the time based purely on the results of Match the Cash’s income and expenditure assessment - it’s the overall picture of his financial situation which, I think, ought to have caused Match the Cash to have realised his position likely wasn’t sustainable. And adding a further loan of £10,000, with a monthly payment of almost £500 only added to that position. So, with everything I’ve set out in mind, I don’t consider that it was the right decision to lend to Mr J at the time. Given my findings on the lending decision and turning next to Mr J’s concerns about having a default reported, I’ve set out, in the redress below, what happens in respect of any adverse credit recorded as a result of Mr J being provided with the credit. As such, I don’t think it’s necessary to look further into Mr J’s concerns about the default being issued, other than to say that while I’m satisfied it was issued in line with the account terms, once Mr J has paid off any outstanding capital balance owing, my instruction below sets out that any adverse information in respect of this loan should be removed. At which point, it will no longer show on Mr J’s credit file. Turning finally to the concerns raised about the duplicate default notice being issued, once again, Match the Cash have accepted their shortcomings in this regard, and accepted the investigator’s initial findings on this point, which was to compensate Mr J by way of a £100 payment. In the circumstances, I think that’s a reasonable sum to reflect the distress that a duplicate notice may have caused. So, I’ve not looked into this any further, other than to say that I’m satisfied the compensation offer is fair in the circumstances. Finally, I’ve also considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under Section 140A (S140A) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, I’m satisfied the redress I have directed below results in fair compensation for Mr J in respect of the loan provided. Based on what I’ve seen, S140A wouldn’t warrant any additional compensation in this case. Putting things right Match the Cash should add up the total repayments Mr J has made and deduct these from the total amount of capital they lent: a) if this results in Mr J having paid more than he received, any overpayments should be refunded along with 8% simple interest (calculated from the date the overpayments were made until the date of settlement). † Match the Cash should also remove all adverse information regarding this account from Mr J’s credit file. b) if any capital balance remains outstanding, then Match the Cash should arrange an affordable and suitable payment plan with Mr J. Once Mr J has cleared the balance, any adverse information in relation to the account should be removed from his credit file.

-- 3 of 4 --

If Match the Cash has sold the debt to a third party, it should arrange to either buy back the debt from the third party or liaise with them to ensure the redress set out above is carried out promptly. Match the Cash should also pay Mr J £100 in compensation if they haven’t already. † HM Revenue & Customs requires Match the Cash to take off tax from this interest. Match the Cash must give Mr J a certificate showing how much tax it’s taken off if he asks for one. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold Mr J’s complaint. And I direct Match the Cash Limited trading as Guarantormyloan.tv to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Brad McIlquham Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --