J D Williams & Company Limited · DRN-6024130

The complaint Miss S complains that J D Williams & Company Limited (J D Williams) acted irresponsibly when they agreed to lend to her. What happened In December 2022, Miss S opened a catalogue shopping account with J D Williams. She complains that they continued to increase the credit limit, which led to the lending being unaffordable. She says that she is now struggling to manage these payments. When the account was first opened in December 2022, Miss S was given a credit limit of £500. She then had the following limit increases: - June 2023 – increase to £800, - August 2023 – increase to £1,200, - October 2023 – increase to £1,700, - April 2024 – increase to £2,600. J D Williams responded to Miss S’ complaint to say that they thought the appropriate checks were made and that these were proportionate to the amount of credit being given. Based on these checks, they found that the lending was responsible. Miss S disagreed and so referred her complaint to our service. Our investigator thought that some lending decisions had checks which were reasonable and proportionate, and that J D Williams fell short on others and ought to have done more. Regardless, they found that the resulting lending decisions were fair. J D Williams didn’t dispute this position, but Miss S did and asked that the case be referred to an ombudsman to review. So, the case has 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. While Miss S has provided detailed evidence of her complaint, and whilst I’ve considered all the available information, I’ve not reflected every point that has been raised. No discourtesy is intended here, this is merely to reflect my informal role in deciding a fair and reasonable outcome. So, I’ve focused on what I think are the key issues of the complaint. If there is something I haven’t mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I’ve considered what both parties have said about Miss S’ lending with J D Williams. Having carefully considered everything, I think that J D Williams acted fairly and reasonably. The relevant rules, regulations, and guidance at the time of J D Williams’ lending decisions required them to carry out proportionate checks. While there isn’t a defined list of checks a

-- 1 of 3 --

lender needs to carry out, such checks should be proportionate, considering things like the type, amount, duration and total cost of the credit, as well as the borrower’s individual circumstances. These checks needed to assess Miss S’ ability to afford the credit being approved and to be able to repay it sustainably, without causing her financial difficulties or harm. It isn’t sufficient for J D Williams to just complete proportionate checks, they must also consider the information obtained from these checks to make fair lending decisions. I’ve considered the checks J D Williams did and what they found from these checks. Account opening Prior to opening this account, J D Williams completed a credit check which showed that Miss S had no recent adverse markers such as bankruptcy, defaults or County Court Judgements (CCJs). No information was gathered about Miss S’ income at this stage. I don’t think there was sufficient information available here for J D Williams to understand Miss S’ financial circumstances, despite managing credit well on external accounts. I say this because due to her other accounts externally, and the £500 limit being offered, I think they ought to have at least asked what her monthly income was at the time of application to understand whether she had money coming in to sustainably repay the credit. I’ve looked at Miss S’ current account statements to see what her income was in the months leading up to the account opening. Miss S was receiving on average around £2,900 per month. I think that had J D Williams asked for information about Miss S’ income, it would be fair to have concluded that this level of lending was more likely than not to be affordable and could be repaid sustainably without creating financial difficulties. So, I don’t think they acted unfairly when opening this account. First to third credit limit increases Before increasing the credit limits in June, August and October 2023, J D Williams considered Miss S’ management of her account with them and completed credit checks. All repayments on her account had been made on time and were for values greater than the minimum due. Only around a quarter of the available limit had ever been utilised throughout this time. At the point of these increases, there were no recent signs in Miss S’ account or on her credit file that indicate she was in financial difficulty or that these increases would not be sustainable for her. The credit check found no arrears on external accounts, no delinquent accounts or defaults. Based on this, I’m comfortable the checks carried out were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. I think the information J D Williams gathered about Miss S’ account management both internally and externally show that sustainable monthly repayments towards these increases were affordable. For these reasons I don’t think J D Williams acted unfairly when increasing these limits. Fourth credit limit increase Before the final credit limit increase in April 2024, J D Williams completed a credit check to determine how Miss S was managing external credit commitments. This found that her external accounts were currently up to date. But there was an account that had been in

-- 2 of 3 --

arrears a few months prior to this increase. J D Williams also considered how Miss S was managing her account with them. Leading up to this, Miss S had consistently made repayments on time. She was paying more than the required amount, with significant overpayments throughout. While there was some adverse information externally, this alone was not enough for me to say that J D Williams ought to have done more. I think that, taking into account the general management of Miss S’ external credit and the management of her account with J D Williams, the checks that they carried out prior to this credit limit increase were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. I’ve also considered if the resulting decision to increase Miss S’ credit limit was fair. Although there was one missed payment on her external credit accounts, checks showed that Miss S’ external credit was well managed. Her account with J D Williams was also well managed, and the utilisation of this account didn’t suggest that she was in financial difficulty at the time. I think the lending was sustainable based on this information and the decision to lend was fair. I don’t think there was anything prior to the complaint being raised that means J D Williams ought to have taken further actions here. But I would also expect J D Williams to show forbearance if Miss S gets in touch with them regarding any difficulties with the repayments towards the account, such as a temporary payment arrangement if suitable. In reaching my conclusions, I’ve also considered whether the lending relationship between Miss S and J D Williams might have been unfair to Miss S under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”). However, for the reasons I’ve already explained, I’m satisfied that J D Williams did not lend irresponsibly when providing Miss S with the credit account or otherwise treat her unfairly in relation to this matter. And I haven’t seen anything to suggest that Section 140A CCA would, given the facts of this complaint, lead to a different outcome here. My final decision For the reasons given above, I do not uphold this complaint against J D Williams & Company Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss S to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026. Frances Kerslake Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --