Amplifi Capital (U.K.) Limited · DRN-6101041

The complaint Mr M complains that Amplifi Capital (U.K.) Limited (trading as Reevo Money) defaulted his account unfairly. What happened Mr M says he experienced temporary financial difficulties in 2025 when he moved house and changed jobs. He says he emailed Reevo on 29 July 2025 to say he would resume his direct debit on 28 August 2025, including an additional £50 per month towards his arrears. In response, Mr M says, Reevo said the arrears needed a separate arrangement and the plan needed reassessing. Mr M explains that this contradicted previous communications and so he raised a complaint on 8 August 2025. But, he says, on 15 August 2025, he received a formal demand for full repayment of the balance whilst his complaint was pending. Mr M adds that following a lengthy call and further discussions, Reevo agreed to him paying his contractual payment, plus a contribution to arrears with effect from 29 September 2025. However, he says Reevo would not remove the default and he received a further demand letter from a debt collection agency (DCA) despite already having made payments under the plan. Mr M says that when he contacted Reevo he was told the DCA should have been removed from his account and that he needed to repeat the process of setting up a repayment plan. Mr M summarises that he’s received contradictory information, his account was unfairly defaulted, and enforcement action continued whilst his complaint was still open. He says the whole process caused significant anxiety and distress. Reevo says it acknowledges Mr M was given different information at various points but that was due to changes in his Income and Expenditure analysis (I&E). It says it has to ensure that any payment arrangement is affordable and sustainable and that the default notice was issued when no formal payment arrangement was in place. Reevo adds that if Mr M clears the arrears, it would consider removing the default. Our investigator did not recommend that the complaint should be upheld. He found that the default had been applied fairly but noted that Reevo has confirmed it will consider its removal once the arrears are repaid. Mr M responded to say, in summary that his complaint centres on the fact that Reevo agreed repayment plans and then withdrew the agreement without any change in his financial circumstances. He clarified that, in August 2025, Reevo had agreed for him to repay the arrears over nine months and then, in October 2025, with no change in his circumstances, it required payment over six months.

-- 1 of 4 --

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. Default Mr M took out a £6,000 loan from Reevo on 25 March 2024. He was initially contracted to pay £267.12 per month for 36 months and did so until February 2025, when he contacted Reevo and explained that he was changing jobs. Mr M asked for his next payment to be deferred until 28 March 2025 but then called on 21 March to explain that he was on reduced pay and behind with his rent and another creditor. Reevo agreed to suspend interest until Mr M could resume his contractual payments in May 2025. On 7 May 2025, Reevo sent Mr M a notice about his arrears and agreed to put a seven-day hold on his account whilst he completed an I&E. However, the same day Mr M said he could resume his contractual monthly payment, plus £200 each month towards his arrears. Reevo resumed charging interest in May 2025, but just £61.36 was applied to Mr M’s account, before it was suspended again because no further payments were received from Mr M. On 5 June 2025, Mr M completed an I&E which showed he had negative disposable income each month and Reevo agreed a further 30-day hold. At the end of June, Mr M then requested a three-month hold, to which Reevo did not agree, although it did not resume charging interest. As Mr M had made no payments since February 2025, Reevo then issued a default notice on 11 July 2025, which gave him until 1 August 2025 to pay arrears of £856.53. Mr M contacted Reevo a few days later and explained that he’d attempted to agree a repayment plan and had completed an I&E. Reevo responded to say that his I&E showed a negative disposable income so it was unable to agree to a repayment plan. On 18 July 2025, Mr M completed a further I&E. This time, he reduced many of his expenditure figures and was able to show a positive disposable income. Reevo acknowledged that Mr M’s next contractual payment was due on 28 Jul 2025 and asked him how much he’d be prepared to pay towards his arrears. It explained that his July payment would need be made manually, but that it would set up a direct debit for the contractual payment from August 2025. Reevo added that the payments towards his arrears would need to be paid manually in addition to that each month. Mr M did not make the scheduled payment on 28 July 2025, but said he’d make the contractual payment on 26 August 2025, and offered a further £50 each month towards his arrears.

-- 2 of 4 --

So, although Mr M had told Reevo several times that he would restart payments, he actually made no payments after 21 February 2025 and failed to meet the requirements of the default notice. I acknowledge that Mr M said his other creditors allowed him to suspend payments completely until he was receiving wages again. However, I need to make my findings based on the merits of each individual complaint and, in this case, I can’t conclude Reevo has made an error in defaulting Mr M’s account on 1 August 2025. Repayment Plans Reevo responded to Mr M’s offer of £50 per month on 6 August 2025, and explained that the arrears would need to be repaid more quickly to prevent the account defaulting. It calculated the minimum additional repayment to be £117, over a period of nine months, to which Mr M agreed. However, on 8 August 2025, Reevo then emailed Mr M and said it could not set up the repayment plan because the account had defaulted earlier that month. Mr M raised his complaint at that point. Mr M then made his contractual repayment on 26 August 2025, followed by an additional £117 on 18 September 2025. When Reevo responded to Mr M’s complaint on 30 September 2025, it explained that the default had been correctly applied. However, it did say it would accept the previously agreed repayment plan for Mr M to pay £117 per month towards his arrears. It also said that, if the outstanding arrears were cleared in full, it would consider removing the default from his account. I consider Reevo responded fairly and reasonably to those elements of Mr M’s complaint and I don’t find it needs to do anything further in that respect. Debt Collection Agency I understand that Mr M was also unhappy that Reevo had transferred his loan account to a DCA. But I’m satisfied that the terms and conditions of Mr M’s account allowed Reevo to transfer his account in that way as they say “Missing payments could have severe consequences. For example, if you don't make your repayments on time, we may take steps to recover the money you owe us. This may include instructing debt collectors to recover what you owe…”. That said, I note that Reevo has now recalled Mr M’s account. Ongoing Issues Mr M has further complained about inconsistencies in what he is now being asked to pay towards his arrears. However, although I don’t dispute what he says, these elements of Mr M’s case happened after Reevo had issued its final response on his initial complaint. As

-- 3 of 4 --

such, Reevo needs to be given an opportunity to formally respond before these later issues can be referred to this service. In summary, whilst I empathise with the effect this has had on Mr M, I don’t find that Reevo acted incorrectly or unfairly in the lead up to applying the default to Mr M’s account because: • Mr M had made no payments between 21 February 2025 and 26 August 2025; • It had charged only £61.36 in interest since February 2025; • The default notice set out clearly that the arrears needed to be paid by 1 August 2025 to prevent the account defaulting. Reevo has also offered to consider removing the default once Mr M has cleared the arrears. However, he should be aware that a default can be re-applied once it is removed, if an account falls into arrears again. This may be detrimental to Mr M if he’s likely to struggle financially again, as a default stays on a credit record for six years. If Mr M wishes to refer his further complaint points about the inconsistent repayment plans to this service, he may do so once Reevo has issued its final response about these additional points. My final decision My decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Amanda Williams Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --