Chetwood Financial Limited · DRN-3396162

The complaint Miss B has complained that Chetwood Financial Limited (LiveLend) lent to her irresponsibly. What happened In August 2018, Miss B took out a loan with LiveLend, The total repayable was £7,199.65. Repayments were £120 over 59 months, with a final repayment of £119.65. Miss B has explained to us that this was unaffordable, as she had been reliant on ‘doorstep’ loans from another lender at the time, and her income was lower than she’d stated to LiveLend when she’d applied for the loan. She feels that if LiveLend had carried out further checks, it would Have realised this, and not lent to her. One of our investigators looked into what had happened, but didn’t think the complaint should be upheld. She noted that although there was previous adverse information on Miss B’s credit file, which LiveLend had seen, this was from a number of years previously. There was no evidence on the credit file of the doorstep loans, and Miss B wasn’t able to provide details either. Our investigator thought that LiveLend had carried out proportionate checks, and its lending decision had been reasonable based on the results of these checks. Miss B disagreed. She feels that further checks should have been carried out, for example requesting bank statements. The complaint’s 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 investigator. I’ll explain why. Lenders are required to carry out proportionate checks, when making lending decisions. In this case, LiveLend relied on:  Miss B’s declaration that she was in full-time employment, with a net income of £1,255, with rental payments of £200 a month and living costs of £500 a month;  verification of this net monthly income, using a database provided by a credit reference agency; and  a report from a credit reference agency showing unsecured credit commitments of £204 a month. Taking this information into account, LiveLend considered the loan was affordable, as Miss B would have sufficient disposable income to meet the monthly repayments. So, I’ve considered whether these checks were proportionate, or whether LiveLend should

-- 1 of 2 --

reasonably have done more. I’ve thought about this very carefully, not least because the loan is for a significant amount of money. I think, ideally, LiveLend could have asked for bank statements. However, I’m mindful that it had taken steps to verify Miss B’s monthly income. These steps supported what she’d declared when she applied for the loan. So, I don’t think there was anything to suggest that LiveLend should make further inquiries as to whether this was correct. Further, there was no evidence of the doorstep loans on Miss B’s credit file, and Miss B hasn’t been able to provide any paperwork. So, there’s nothing to make me think LiveLend could reasonably have been aware of these. For these reasons, I’m satisfied that LiveLend carried out proportionate checks, and its lending decision was reasonable, based on what these checks showed. That said, if Miss B is currently experiencing financial difficulty, I would urge her to contact LiveLend. I would expect it to respond positively any sympathetically to circumstances of financial difficulty. My final decision For the reasons given above, it’s my final decision not to uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss B to accept or reject my decision before 12 January 2023. Elspeth Wood Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --