DRN-6037890

The complaint Mr S complains Amplifi Capital (U.K.) Limited trading as Reevo Money (Reevo) unfairly reported a default with credit reference agencies (CRAs) following a number of missed payments on his loan account. What happened Mr S took out a personal loan with Reevo in February 2024. The loan was for £1,000 and was repayable over 24 months, with monthly repayments of around £60. Payments were being maintained on the account, until September 2024, when Mr S’s payment was made late. But following a discussion and an agreement to get things back on track, a payment was made in October, however the September payment remained outstanding. A further payment was made in November, but again in December, payments stopped. Mr S spoke with Reevo, who then set up a reduced payment plan for six months at £19.77 a month, starting January 2025. Despite the above plan, no payments were made in January or February 2025. An income and expenditure form (I&E) was then completed, which showed Mr S to have a negative disposable income, meaning no money was available to make any repayments. And following a further payment being missed at the start of March, on 6 March 2025, Reevo issued a default notice, requiring Mr S to pay the full arrears. No payment was forthcoming by the date required, so, as a result, Mr S’s agreement was defaulted on 29 March 2025 and subsequently passed onto a third party. Unhappy, Mr S complained. Reevo responded to Mr S’s complaint, but maintained that the default had been reported fairly. However, due to some administrative issues in locating Mr S’s account and not calling him back when arranged, they agreed to compensate him £25. Mr S remained unhappy however, so he brought his complaint to our service. An investigator considered Mr S’s complaint, but ultimately, didn’t recommend it be upheld. She said that she thought that Reevo had issued the default in line with the information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance on the reporting of arrears and defaults; so, she didn’t think they needed to do anything further in this regard. And she felt the £25 offered for service failings was reasonable in the circumstances. But Mr S remained unhappy and felt that Reevo had been too quick to report a default on his account when an arrangement had been made. So, as the parties remained in disagreement, the case was 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, and while I accept this may be disappointing for Mr S, I’ve reached the same conclusions as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons.

-- 1 of 3 --

It’s not in dispute that in September 2024, Mr S faced some difficulties with his payments, and that he was made aware by Reevo, that further arrears – following his missed payment in September - could potentially result in his account defaulting. Reevo have told us that around the time of the September missed payment, they requested Mr S complete an I&E. But they have not been able to locate a completed form to provide our service following their interactions. Following the September missed payment however, subsequent payments were made in October and November 2024, leaving just the September payment outstanding. In December 2025, following a further missed payment due to a period of financial difficulty, Mr S spoke with Reevo to discuss the difficulties he was experiencing. And a plan was put in place based on verbal assurances from Mr S to pay £19.77 a month, for a period of six months, starting in January 2025. However, despite this plan, no payment was made in January or February 2025, and subsequent letters were sent to Mr S, informing him of the arrears on the account, and the subsequent consequences of non-payment. Following the missed payments in January and February, Reevo again requested that Mr S complete an I&E. The I&E was completed; however, it showed that Mr S had no disposable income available from which to make any ongoing repayments. To the contrary, it showed his disposable income to be negative £800. In other words, Mr S’s outgoings were around £800 more than his income each month. As a result of this, and despite assurances from Mr S, unfortunately no payment was made in March either. So, as a result, on 6 March 2025, a default notice was issued to Mr S, requiring him to pay the full arrears by 27 March, and it explained that if he failed to, that a default would be recorded against his credit file. I’m sorry to hear of the distress this matter has caused Mr S. But the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which sets out the principles for the reporting of arrears, arrangements and Defaults at CRAs, state: “If you fall into arrears on your account, or you do not keep to the revised terms of an arrangement, a default may be recorded to show that the relationship has broken down. As a general guide, this may occur when you are 3 months in arrears, and normally by the time you are 6 months in arrears.” At the point the default was recorded, Mr S’s account was now five months in arrears, so I’m satisfied the default was issued in line with that guidance. The guidance goes on to state: “If an arrangement is agreed (see Principle 3 above), a default would not normally be registered unless the terms of that arrangement are broken.” In this instance, while I accept Mr S feels that Reevo were quick to default him early on in the arrangement, the arrangement was put in place in December 2025, following Mr S having not made five of the last six repayments. Payments were due to start under the arrangement in January, however the arrangement failed at the start, as no payment was made that month. It seems Reevo however, allowed Mr S more time before opting to default his account. However, Mr S then went on to miss the second payment due in February, and the third payment due in March. So, at this point, none of the payments made under the arrangement had been made, and this was in addition to the arrears that had already built up on his account.

-- 2 of 3 --

Taking into account the conduct of Mr S’s account, and the support that had been offered by Reevo up until this point; and given the guidance set out by the ICO quoted above, I think as of early March 2025, it was reasonable for Reevo to have concluded that by this point, the relationship between them and Mr S had broken down. So, for these reasons, I don’t think it was unreasonable for Reevo to issue the default notice at the start of March 2025. And when Mr S failed to pay the amount due under the notice, by the date set out, I think it was reasonable for them to report the default to CRAs in the circumstances. I appreciate there were some small service failings when Mr S tried to locate his account with Reevo around the time his debt was passed to a third-party company to manage, and them failing to call him back when agreed. But while frustrating, I think the impact here was minimal, and on balance, I’m satisfied the £25 offered for their service failings here was reasonable. So, while I appreciate this will come as a disappointment to Mr S, and I know this was not the outcome he would have been hoping for, for the reasons set out above, I’m satisfied that Reevo acted fairly in reporting the default when they did; and, I think the compensation they offered for the service issues Mr S experienced was reasonable in the circumstances. So, for the reasons set out above, I won’t be asking Reevo to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold Mr S’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 15 May 2026. Brad McIlquham Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --