Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC · DRN-6098364

The complaint Mrs D complains that Mitsubishi HC Capital UK PLC trading as Novuna Personal Finance is holding her liable for the debt on a loan which she applied for as part of a scam. What happened The detailed background to this complaint is well known to both parties. So, I’ll only provide a brief overview of some of the key events here. In September 2024, Mrs D saw an advert online for a job opportunity which required her to make payments in cryptocurrency in return for a commission. Unfortunately, this turned out to be an employment scam and as the scam progressed, Mrs D was persuaded to take out loans which were paid into Bank H, before being paid out to the scam. On 22 October 2024, Mrs D applied for a £11,000 loan with Novuna, stating the loan was for home improvements. The funds were paid into Bank H on 23 October 2024 and were subsequently paid out to the scam. Mrs D realised she’d been scammed when she was unable to claim her commission. She complained to Novuna, but it said Mrs D’s genuine card details were used on the application and the loan funds were sent to her bank account. It also said it was unable to remove the information from her credit file explaining it must report accurate information to the Credit Reference Agencies. However, it accepted that it should have made it clearer that reporting a payment plan would affect her credit file. It also said that when the complaint was set up, it made a mistake because the colleague didn’t realise she was reporting fraud and voided the complaint. It apologised for this and paid her £200 compensation. Mrs D wasn’t satisfied and so she complained to this service, explaining that she’d been coerced by scammers to apply for the loan and that she’d believed the job was legitimate. She said Novuna ought to have identified that she was at risk of fraud when she applied for the loan. Responding to the complaint, Novuna said Mrs D’s genuine details were used in the application and the funds went to her genuine bank account. It explained that as part of the application process, Mrs D was sent a text message with a passcode, to allow her to sign the application. The funds were then paid into her bank account, which she later confirmed was her genuine account. From there, she moved the funds onto the scam to pay for what she had believed was a legitimate opportunity to make commission. So, it was clear she was aware of the loan and would therefore be held liable for the loan and the payments. Our investigator didn’t think the complaint should be upheld. She noted Mrs D accepted having made the loan application, the loan was applied for online using her genuine details, and she also activated the loan with a passcode which was sent by text to her registered number. The funds were then paid into her Bank H account before being transferred out to other accounts. So, she was satisfied Mrs D knew about and consented to the loan and that

-- 1 of 2 --

she had use of the loan funds, as she thought she was using them for a legitimate opportunity to earn commission. Our investigator further explained that Mrs D didn’t hold an account with Novuna, so it wouldn’t have been unable to identify that she was using the funds to buy cryptocurrency, and as Bank H has refunded a large part of her loss, she can’t now ask Novuna not to hold her liable for the loan. Mrs D has asked for her complaint to be reviewed by an Ombudsman. She maintains she was coerced and manipulated by the scammer, and she didn’t benefit from the loan funds because they were all lost to the scam. 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’ve reached the same conclusion as our investigator. And for largely the same reasons. I’m sorry to hear that Mrs D has been the victim of a cruel scam. I know she feels strongly about this complaint, and this will come as a disappointment to her, so I’ll explain why. The detailed background to this complaint is well known to both parties. So, I’ll only provide a brief overview of some of the key events here. Having considered this carefully, I’m satisfied Mrs D knew about and consented to this loan being taken out in her name. This is because she accepts that she completed the online loan application, and I note it contains her correct details. Mrs D was then sent a passcode to her registered device which was used to activate the loan. The loan funds were then deposited into Mrs D’s Bank H account and from there she authorised payments to the scam. So, while I accept Mrs D did lose the loan funds to the scam, I’m satisfied that it was taken out with her knowledge and consent and that she had use of the funds. In addition, it’s my understanding that Mrs D has already been compensated by Bank H regarding the loss of the loan funds. This is because Mrs D brought a complaint to us about Bank H, the outcome of which included that they would refund a large part of her loss, which included the funds from this loan. In circumstances like this, where Novuna granted the loan in good faith, and Mrs D then paid those funds to the scam but has since received the appropriate amount of funds back, I don’t think I can fairly tell Novuna that it can’t pursue Mrs D for any outstanding loan balance. So, I’m satisfied that Novuna’s decision to hold Mrs D liable for the loan is fair. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs D to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Carolyn Bonnell Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --