Payday loan firm with thousands of customers plunges into administration – what it means for YOU and your repayments
Fund Ourselves Limited entered administration on Monday, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said.
Borrowers are being urged to continue making payments as normal, otherwise they risk damaging their credit score or being hit with additional charges as a penalty for late or missed payments.
If your credit score takes a hit it could stop you from borrowing money in the future, for example if you want to apply for a mortgage, loan or even a phone contract.
Sara Williams, founder of advice website Debt Camel, explains: 'If you have taken out a loan with Fund Ourselves then you still legally owe that money, the fact they have gone bust doesn't change this.
"If repaying this loan will cause you problems, talk to a debt adviser."
Customers who are struggling to make repayments should speak to the lender about arranging a more affordable plan to pay back the debt.
They can also get free and impartial help from MoneyHelper.
Louise Brittain and Robert Young of Azets Holdings Limited have been appointed as joint administrators to wind down the firm.
They will be writing to all known creditors shortly to explain what the administration means for them and how to make a claim.
Fund Ourselves Limited offered high-cost short-term credit loans and a small peer-to-peer lending platform.
It also offered crowdfunded loans that were used to finance high-cost short-term credit loans.
The FCA took action against the company to restrict its assets and permissions to carry out regulatory activities.
The regulator said: 'We are engaging with the firm and the Joint Administrators to seek to ensure the best outcomes for customers.'
Customers and retail investors of the company are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
The scheme protects consumers when financial firms go out of business.
For example, if your bank or insurer goes bust and can't give you your money back, then in some cases the FSCS may be able to give you compensation of up to £85,000.
But this does not apply to Fund Ourselves Limited customers, the FCA said.
What to do if you can't pay back a Payday loan
HERE'S what you should do if you can't pay back a loan that you've taken out, according to the Money Advice Service:
Contact the Payday lender as soon as possible - By law, they must pause any repayments for a reasonable amount of time until you can come up with a plan with a debt adviser for how to make the repayments affordable. They may also freeze interest or suspend charges.
Think about cancelling the recurring payment - But ONLY if you've spoken to the lender first. This may damage your credit score further but if you need the money to pay for things like food, rent or utility bills then you may have to look at stopping the payments. You should also get free debt advice before doing this.
Refuse to roll your loan over - The lender may advise you to "roll over" your loan to the next month but this is bad idea. It means you'll have to pay even more in charges and interest so you actually end up owing more. Instead, you should look at agreeing an affordable repayment plan.
Get help from a free debt adviser - If you don't know how to deal with a Payday lender or are struggling with how you're going to approach them you can get free help from the following charities:
The joint administrators will give more details about how any complaints will be dealt with in the coming months.
If you have any questions about a claim against Fund Ourselves Limited, or any questions or loans and investments then you should contact the joint administrators' customer support team.
To do so email fundourselves@azets.co.uk or call 07858 969 574.
If you can't get answers to your questions from the administrators then you may be able to speak to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
To check if you can make a complaint visit financial-ombudsman.org.uk/make-complaint.
Sara Williams explains that you may be able to get a refund in certain circumstances.
She said: "If the loan was large or you have borrowed several times from Fund Ourselves, you may be owed a refund for 'unaffordable lending'.
"You will be able to make a claim to the administrators.'
The FCA has also warned all customers to stay alert to fraud.
If you are unexpectedly contacted by someone claiming to be from Fund Ourselves Limited or Azets, end the call and contact them using the number above.
Which other Payday lenders have gone bust?
Fund Ourselves Limited is not the first Payday lender to call it a day.
One of the UK's biggest short-term lender, Wonga, went bust in August 2018.
Since then, Sunny has gone into administration, affecting 50,000 customers.
The high-cost credit firm went bust in 2020, blaming the impact of the coronavirus and the continued clampdown on the Payday loan sector.
Piggy Bank, 247MoneyBox, QuickQuid, WageDayAdvance and Juo Loans have also gone bust, throwing customers into financial uncertainty.
Many of them buckled under an influx of compensation claims over irresponsible lending.
Now that the company has gone bust, compensation claims are at risk.
Customers who have already submitted a claim may only get back a portion of what they are owed because the company might not be able to afford to pay you in full.
The unaffordable loans may also be removed from your credit record.
Borrowers who think they were irresponsibly lent to but haven't made a claim yet should do so.
This is because when a company fails, your compensation claim will be added to the back of a long queue of people the business owes money to.
Big investors and lenders will usually be paid first, which could mean the pot of money left for customers is much smaller.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Martin Lewis advises patience after Supreme Court car finance ruling
Millions of drivers may be due compensation for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Money expert Martin Lewis advises patience, suggesting an automatic redress scheme could be implemented by the Financial Conduct Authority by the end of the year. The Supreme Court recently ruled that car finance lenders are only liable for hidden commission payments in the most "unfair" cases. While the Supreme Court allowed appeals from two lenders, it upheld one driver's claim, finding his case unfair and awarding him compensation. Lewis cautioned against engaging claims firms currently, as an automatic scheme would negate the need for their services and prevent unnecessary fees.
Glasgow Times
17 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Drivers should be ‘very pessimistic' over car finance claims, say lawyers
Industry analysts also said on Friday that banks will 'breathe a sigh of relief' after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Nevertheless, the financial watchdog has said it is still considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who potentially receive compensation. Lawyers have also indicated that some consumers should still consider pursuing their claims over 'unfair' treatment. We welcome that the Supreme Court has clarified the law. We want to provide clarity as quickly as possible. So we'll confirm whether we will consult on a redress scheme before markets open on Monday 4 — Financial Conduct Authority (@TheFCA) August 1, 2025 Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers in agreements before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The ruling last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation. But in a decision on Friday, justices at the UK's highest court overturned the Court of Appeal, though some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. However, the judges upheld a claim brought by one driver under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair', awarding him the commission amount of £1,650.95 plus interest. Lizzy Comley, chief operating officer of consumer law firm Slater and Gordon, said the ruling still reinforces the right of many consumers to pursue claims. Following today's Supreme Court decision regarding the mis-selling of car finance, Slater and Gordon's, Elizabeth Comley, has issued the following statement. Read the statement in full on our website: — Slater and Gordon UK (@SlaterGordonUK) August 1, 2025 She said: 'This landmark ruling is positive news for the millions of people who have lost money due to the car finance mis-selling. 'The court confirmed that for years, consumers have potentially been unfairly overcharged on car finance agreements, and this ruling reinforces their right to pursue justice and recover the compensation they deserve.' However, others have said that the ruling will make it harder for most claims. Nicola Pangbourne, partner at Kennedys law firm, said: 'If I was a driver, I would be very pessimistic about getting compensation. There's now quite a few hurdles they've got to get through.' Industry experts have suggested the ruling will be broadly seen as a success for lenders, who had been preparing for significant compensation payments. Caroline Wayman, global head of financial Services at PA Consulting, said: 'Lenders will breathe a sigh of relief at the ruling, but it should still be a wake-up call for firms to scrutinise any large, undisclosed commissions in their business. 'Firms should ask themselves whether it still feels justifiable or could be considered unfair, particularly if they haven't disclosed commercial ties to the broker and it won't be enough to expect customers to have read and understood the fine print.' On Friday, a spokesperson for the Financial Conduct Authority said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday. They said: 'We want to bring greater certainty for consumers, firms and investors as quickly as possible.'
Powys County Times
21 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules
Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers, after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, but some motorists may still receive payouts. The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will confirm by Monday whether it will consult on a redress scheme, while one of the three drivers said he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling. Handing down the judgment, Lord Reed said the car dealer 'was at all times pursuing its own commercial interest in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms'. He continued: 'In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Court of Appeal failed to understand that the dealer has a commercial interest in the arrangement between the customer and the finance company. 'The court mistakenly treated the dealer as acting solely in the interests of the customer once the customer had chosen a car and agreed a price.' The FCA, which intervened in the case, previously said it would set out within six weeks whether it would consult on a redress scheme. But a spokesperson said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday 'to provide clarity as quickly as possible'. Lord Reed said the Supreme Court had decided to deliver its ruling on a Friday afternoon, outside of trading hours and after the markets had closed for the weekend, to avoid the risk of 'market disorder'. The three drivers involved in the case, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars worth less than £10,000 before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, the car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, and the three drivers took legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission because of the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the FCA claimed the ruling went 'too far'. In their 110-page judgment, the five Supreme Court justices found that 'an offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically'. They said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair'. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. The Supreme Court ruled he should receive the commission and interest, which Mr Johnson told the PA news agency totalled 'just over £3,000'. Mr Johnson said that he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling, which he said 'does not sit right with me'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' He said the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. A Treasury spokesperson said it would work to 'understand the impact for both firms and consumers'. They said: 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Close Brothers said it was 'considering' the judgment and 'will make any further announcements as and when appropriate'. Kavon Hussain, founder and lawyer at Consumer Rights Solicitors, which represented Ms Hopcraft and Mr Wrench, said it was 'disappointing' the Supreme Court did not fully uphold the Court of Appeal's ruling. He said: 'The Supreme Court ruling supports our view that lenders had acted unfairly in millions of car finance deals. 'This should now pave the way for the biggest compensation payout to motorists in British legal history. 'We will fight to get consumers the money they are owed by these lenders.'
