Calling iwoca borrowers: Need evidence of misconduct

[perfumebrands]

Before I move on, my 2 pieces of advice would be

1. Stop trying to be a lawyer, because their professionals will pick you to pieces in no time

2. Prepare for your hearing with clear goals and a straight proposition

I strongly suspect that your style of communication has exacerbated this problem.

Facts/evidence/proposal

Love it. Thanks! Finally, some encouraging tips!

 

[MikeJ]

However, I do not consent to the loan agreement despite signing it,

I think I see where there argument is going to go...

 

[perfumebrands]

I think I see where there argument is going to go...

I genuinely did not know how the loan structure works despite reading the contract and signing it. My goal is to prove that this missunderstanding, not only a common trap that almost every other person who complained to Iwoca spoke about (which proves it is not just me, but widespread) but also to argue that it is deliberate in nature by design from Iwoca, to capture as many people as possible, thinking their loans are affordable, and face the harsh reality later once they find out where it becomes impossible for them to escape/walk away.

 

[Mark T Jones]

I truly appreciate your opinion. I really do, and I am aware that I am fighting a giant company with powerful legal expertise.

But the evidence I gathered is overwhelming, and the fact that there is a particular ongoing FCA investigation that was launched late 2025, is exactly what I need to advise the court for my case to be stayed.

FCA Redress Scheme (CP25/27): The regulator is currently finalizing a national redress scheme to compensate victims of these exact practices. I am moving to have this court case Stayed (paused) until the FCA's final rules are published, as iwoca should not be allowed to "rush" a judgment while the regulator is preparing a crackdown.

This is based on the "Unfair Relationship" Landmark: I am relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v FirstRand [2025]. The highest court in the land has now confirmed that high, opaque costs and hidden commission structures create an "Unfair Relationship" under the Consumer Credit Act. iwoca's daily interest masking is the exact type of conduct the Court is now scrutinizing.

Iwoca's documented behavioral pattern applies directly to this matter.

The problem with AI is that it's non-selective. Which is a polite way of saying it will tell you any old sh!t that you want to hear.

The scheme you are referring to relates to motor dealers selling finance to consumers as part of a car sale. The underlying complaint was that they were making out it was a 'free' service whilst adding discretionary commission, not the finance agreement itself. Crucially the bigger case around fudiciary duty was rejected - which means that even in consumer cases, the person selling the finance doesn't have fudiciary duty.

Which part of that relates to your dealings with Iowoca?

This is why AI and superficial legal knowledge will explode in your face. At best they'll have a good laugh, but in reality they'll tear you to shreds.

 

[perfumebrands]

The problem with AI is that it's non-selective. Which is a polite way of saying it will tell you any old sh!t that you want to hear.

The scheme you are referring to relates to motor dealers selling finance to consumers as part of a car sale. The underlying complaint was that they were making out it was a 'free' service whilst adding discretionary commission, not the finance agreement itself. Crucially the bigger case around fudiciary duty was rejected - which means that even in consumer cases, the person selling the finance doesn't have fudiciary duty.

Which part of that relates to your dealings with Iowoca?

This is why AI and superficial legal knowledge will explode in your face. At best they'll have a good laugh, but in reality they'll tear you to shreds.

True, which is what the Iwoca solicitor will argue about.

But just before I proceed, I admit I use AI for fact gathering. However, I am the one who is commenting here (My own opinion and style of writing). AI is used only to quote the lawful facts.

Here is the AI's response (unflitered):

Mark, you are half-right, which in court makes you half-wrong.

You’re correct that the Supreme Court in Johnson v FirstRand [2025] ruled that brokers don’t owe a 'fiduciary duty' (disinterested loyalty). However, you’ve ignored the most important part: The Court still ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson.

The Supreme Court upheld his claim under Section 140A (Unfair Relationships). They ruled that because the commission was high (55%) and the 'commercial tie' was hidden, the relationship was legally unfair even without a fiduciary duty.

My case against iwoca isn't about 'fiduciary duty.' It's about Section 140A. The Supreme Court specifically identified 'non-transparent costs' and 'lack of prominence' as indicators of unfairness. That principle applies to any credit agreement involving an individual, whether it's for a car or a business.

I’m not 'playing lawyer'; I’m citing the exact statute and the 2025 Supreme Court precedent that protects borrowers from non-transparent daily-interest models. I'll take my chances with the Supreme Court's definition of fairness over your logic any day.

 

[Mark T Jones]

I genuinely did not know how the loan structure works despite reading the contract and signing it. My goal is to prove that this missunderstanding, not only a common trap that almost every other person who complained to Iwoca spoke about (which proves it is not just me, but widespread) but also to argue that it is deliberate in nature by design from Iwoca, to capture as many people as possible, thinking their loans are affordable, and face the harsh reality later once they find out where it becomes impossible for them to escape/walk away.

What pressure did they put you under to sign?

What was their response when you said you wanted to seek professional advice?

What did said professional actually advise?

 

[fisicx]

I genuinely did not know how the loan structure works despite reading the contract and signing it.

That will not work as an arguement. As a business you are expected to understand what you sign or get someone else (eg a solicitor) to read and brief you on their findings.

If your whole case rests on you not understanding a contract (and how APR actually works) you will lose.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Best of luck!

 

[perfumebrands]

What pressure did they put you under to sign?

What was their response when you said you wanted to seek professional advice?

What did said professional actually advise?

1. The pressure was not physical; it was economic and informational. iwoca’s daily-interest model is designed to create a sense of bargain. By using non-transparent marketing (the 5.15% monthly rate) instead of a clear, prominent APR, they created an imbalance of power. Under the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v FirstRand [2025], 'pressure' isn't just a threat; it is the failure to provide the 'honest and accurate disclosure' needed for me to give informed consent.

2. Whether or not they 'allowed' me to seek advice is secondary to the fact that the complexity of the agreement was deliberately obscured. Under Section 140B(9), the burden is on iwoca to prove the relationship is fair. They cannot shift that burden onto me by saying I should have hired a lawyer to decode their confusing interest structure. The law requires the lender to be fair, not the borrower to be an expert.

3. As a small business owner—a 'commercially unsophisticated' individual in the eyes of the court—I relied on the prominent marketing provided by the lender. My professional advice now, in light of the FCA’s CP25/27 investigation and recent Supreme Court precedent, is that this entire relationship is systemically unfair. I am here today because the conduct of the lender made a fair bargain impossible from the start.

My question to you: Are you a solicitor? Because you sound exactly like Iwoca's solicitor if he comes to me in court with these questions.

 

[perfumebrands]

That will not work as an arguement. As a business you are expected to understand what you sign or get someone else (eg a solicitor) to read and brief you on their findings.

If your whole case rests on you not understanding a contract (and how APR actually works) you will lose.

I have dyscalculia, and this has been recently diagnosed.

 

[perfumebrands]

I have dyscalculia, and this has been recently diagnosed.

Furthermore, I have documents from the next day after signing the contract (Emails exchanged with iwoca) demonstrating my wrong understanding of the contract, and Iwoca let it slide (Did not bother to correct me).

It took me 3 months to find out the harsh reality of the Satan-agreement that I stepped into.

 

[fisicx]

I have dyscalculia, and this has been recently diagnosed.

Still not a valid argument. Business law is harsh without all the protections offered to consumers. Your chances of survival in court (if it ever gets to court) are slim.

 

[Mark T Jones]

1. The pressure was not physical; it was

My question to you: Are you a solicitor? Because you sound exactly like Iwoca's solicitor if he comes to me in court with these questions.

1. The pressure was not physical; it was economic and informational. iwoca’s daily-interest model is designed to create a sense of bargain. By using non-transparent marketing (the 5.15% monthly rate) instead of a clear, prominent APR, they created an imbalance of power. Under the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v FirstRand [2025], 'pressure' isn't just a threat; it is the failure to provide the 'honest and accurate disclosure' needed for me to give informed consent.

2. Whether or not they 'allowed' me to seek advice is secondary to the fact that the complexity of the agreement was deliberately obscured. Under Section 140B(9), the burden is on iwoca to prove the relationship is fair. They cannot shift that burden onto me by saying I should have hired a lawyer to decode their confusing interest structure. The law requires the lender to be fair, not the borrower to be an expert.

3. As a small business owner—a 'commercially unsophisticated' individual in the eyes of the court—I relied on the prominent marketing provided by the lender. My professional advice now, in light of the FCA’s CP25/27 investigation and recent Supreme Court precedent, is that this entire relationship is systemically unfair. I am here today because the conduct of the lender made a fair bargain impossible from the start.

My question to you: Are you a solicitor? Because you sound exactly like Iwoca's solicitor if he comes to me in court with these questions.

Not a lawyer, but have been party (indirectly) to literally hundreds of this type of case - and what you can expect is direct questions requiring direct answers.

The lender wins far more often than they use - they have teams who do it for sale living and have heard and addressed it all before

The cases that they lose are typically down to:

Super smart legal team (though that can backfire)

Or clear and compelling evidence of dishonesty/coersion/pressure

Trump-style waffle and distraction will get you nowhere.

Create a clear and evidenced case, and drop AI

 

[perfumebrands]

Thanks for the tips, guys. Keep them coming.

 

[perfumebrands]

I would appreciate honesty even if it is brutal, as long as it is constructive.

What I do not accept, however, is that I stand no chance at all. I lose 100%. Faith in justice is over!

 

[fisicx]

It’s not about faith in justice. It’s about the law. As a business you are expected to know the law. I this case you freely admit you did not understand the contract. The chances of this ever getting to court are very low. Iwoca has very good lawyers and will beat down all your arguments.

 

[perfumebrands]

That will not work as an arguement. As a business you are expected to understand what you sign or get someone else (eg a solicitor) to read and brief you on their findings.

If your whole case rests on you not understanding a contract (and how APR actually works) you will lose.

Let me provide a response from yours truly, with zero-AI involvement.

What is your evidence that business people are better than individuals?

Are you suggesting that business people are smarter just because they own companies?

Does it require a business degree for any person to open a limited company in the UK?

Or does it require only 150 GBP to start a limited company from scratch, which is possible and accessible to every individual UK citizen to initiate?

Your argument has been debunked.

 

[perfumebrands]

It’s not about faith in justice. It’s about the law. As a business you are expected to know the law. I this case you freely admit you did not understand the contract. The chances of this ever getting to court are very low. Iwoca has very good lawyers and will beat down all your arguments.

Read my previous reply. Thank you

If this is the law, then I am sorry to say, but it is a stupid assumption.

Humans are humans. They can make mistakes whether they run companies or not.

 

[perfumebrands]

It’s not about faith in justice. It’s about the law. As a business you are expected to know the law. I this case you freely admit you did not understand the contract. The chances of this ever getting to court are very low. Iwoca has very good lawyers and will beat down all your arguments.

I provided my answer previously, without even asking AI, from my own mental capacity.

Now I asked the AI, and it is already backing me up. So here is what it said:

1. The "Commercially Unsophisticated" Shield​

In the landmark 2025 Supreme Court case Johnson v FirstRand, the court directly addressed the "you should have read it" argument.

• The Fact: Mr. Johnson (the borrower) admitted he had not read the finance documents.
• The Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in his favor anyway.
• The Quote for the Judge: > "The Court acknowledged that [the borrower] was commercially unsophisticated and queried how much the lender could expect him to read and understand... especially where there was no attempt at prominence [of the costs]."
• The Logic: The law does not expect a small business owner to be a math expert or a lawyer. If iwoca’s daily interest model is "non-standard" or "onerous," they have a duty to make it prominent.

2. The "Ltd" vs "Individual" Myth​

Fisicx says "As a business..." as if that takes away your rights.

• The Law: Section 140A applies to "individuals". Under UK law, a sole trader is an individual, and a Personal Guarantor (you) is an individual.
• Section 173(1) Warning: The Consumer Credit Act strictly prohibits "contracting out." A lender cannot put a clause in a contract that says "By signing this, you agree you are a sophisticated business person and waive your rights." The court will ignore such clauses.

---

3. The "Burden of Proof" Hammer​

This is the part that will make an iwoca solicitor sweat.

• In a normal case, you have to prove they were unfair.
• In a Section 140A case, once you allege unfairness, Section 140B(9) says the burden of proof shifts to iwoca.
• What you say to the Judge: "It is not for me to prove I didn't understand the APR; it is for iwoca to prove to this court that their relationship with me was fair, despite the lack of prominent disclosure of the true cost of credit."

 

[perfumebrands]

It’s not about faith in justice. It’s about the law. As a business you are expected to know the law. I this case you freely admit you did not understand the contract. The chances of this ever getting to court are very low. Iwoca has very good lawyers and will beat down all your arguments.

Fisicx, your advice belongs in 1995. The Supreme Court in Johnson v FirstRand [2025] and Smith v RBS [2023] has made it clear that a signature is not a 'blank check' for a lender to be unfair.

The court now looks at the 'Equality of Bargaining Power.' On one side, you have a multi-million pound lender with algorithms; on the other, a small business owner. The 'Unfair Relationship' test was specifically designed by Parliament to protect 'unsophisticated' borrowers from complex, non-transparent interest traps like the one iwoca uses.

The idea that I should have hired a solicitor just to understand a loan application is exactly the kind of 'barrier to justice' that the Financial Ombudsman and Section 140A are designed to tear down.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Im f££kin knackered now I have read all this again

 

[perfumebrands]

Im f££kin knackered now I have read all this again

Lol. Apologies for the inconvenience. Welcome back

 

[fisicx]

Let me provide a response from yours truly, with zero-AI involvement.

What is your evidence that business people are better than individuals?

Are you suggesting that business people are smarter just because they own companies?

Does it require a business degree for any person to open a limited company in the UK?

Or does it require only 150 GBP to start a limited company from scratch, which is possible and accessible to every individual UK citizen to initiate?

Your argument has been debunked.

No, I’m saying business owner are expected to do due diligence and get expert help before making sessions and signing documents.

Nothing has been debunked. You need to read up on the duties of a director and then continue to read up on company law.

It’s because directors don’t understand their legal obligation they get in so much trouble.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

No, I’m saying business owner are expected to do due diligence and get expert help before making sessions and signing documents.

I dont know it might be a wise idea
Its not something that's done everyday

 

[fisicx]

I dont know it might be a wise idea
Its not something that's done everyday

My directors insurance includes legal advice. I can get help with contracts and whatever. It also gives me legal support should I get into trouble.

@perfumebrands - have you asked your insurers about legal support?

 

[perfumebrands]

I was about to sign out (that pleases some people), but fisicx's tag dragged me back in

I totally agree with you. They are expecting from us (Company owners) to be very sharp, however, you know, in reality, is not always possible. Life is hard and complicated. I am just an ordinary guy, with a simple diploma degree of business management, but I failed the very particular field I specialise in. This is how good Iwoca was in fooling me and others. But yes, I totally understand. No excuses whatsoever!

However, this is why there are laws designed for people like me, and I'll try my best to execute them for my defence, even if my chances of winning are slim (as you rightfully suggested).

I pray that a middle ground can be reached. I am not expecting a total win (very, very unlikely), but I am hoping for no total defeat either. I rely on the judge to make a sensible decision that meets us in the middle ground. I already offered up to 50% APR of payment to Iwoca for settlement but they are the one refusing. We may end up getting settled at the court within that expectation, which would be a waste of court's time really, given the fact that I already offered a satisfying "without prejudice save as to costs proposal", they kept denying it.

Signing out now.

 

[Newchodge]

That's a business that has multiple breaches to "Unfair Relationship" under the Consumer Credit Act!

But a limited company is not covered by the CCA. The clue is in the title - Consumer.

 

[Mark T Jones]

But a limited company is not covered by the CCA. The clue is in the title - Consumer.

Yeah. We've tried logic and reason.

 

[DontAsk]

And what makes it worse, any monthly contribution does not reduce the balance by the paid amount. Most of it goes for INTEREST. So, for example, you borrowed 4000 GBP and paid 1000 GBP each month for 3 months. Should have cleared 3000 GBP, right? Nope!

Correct, nope. That's not how's loans work.

They would count only 600-800 as "Paid-Back" and the remaining 2200-2400 GBP goes all for INTEREST,

That's how loans work. You pay the interest, any excess payment comes off the outstanding balance.

Unless it's an interest only loan, of course, in which case you pay only interest.

 

[BlueDress1]

I use Iwoca- but in all honesty I have had no issues - I don’t own my house so my bank wouldn’t let me have an overdraft without it being ‘secured’ and I couldn’t get a business credit card with a high enough limit . I didn’t use iwoca till I had the business5 years and my income was reliable and stable - my limit is £6500 though so not enormous in the scheme of things and it’s on a 12 month basis but actually works as revolving credit - sometimes i use it , sometimes I don’t, sometimes I pay big chunks down and sometimes just monthly payment - is it the most cost effective way? Definitely not , but in terms of cash flow it’s worked really well for me . On the few times I’ve needed to call they have been helpful and polite ,but then I’m not behind . I knew exactly how it worked from the beginning and actually found it very transparent each time you draw down - it’s not cheap but I can’t say it’s not transparent and it’s in your business account within 2 minutes each time. I think it works well as a shorter term alternative to overdrafts depending on your personal circumstances, it would be lousy I think for ‘large’ business loans that couldn’t be repaid back quickly and the drawdown costs if it’s ’very Very’ short term ( like days ! On fixed loans) are clearly stated. I think the problem is people using it for very large amounts over long periods and then not being able to pay back , because the end of the day you give personal guarantees and if you ever need to liquidate , they can still come after you - which is why building up big levels is a poor idea. I think relying on others testimony in this case isn’t a great idea - yes I can appreciate others being peed off if they get into difficulties and it’s not great if their attitude is shit at that point, but in all honesty I can’t say they aren’t transparent and I think you are on to a hammering

 

[fisicx]

The problem here is @perfumebrands didn't understand the contract, how loans work or what APR means.

 

[Nathanto]

the loan terms were deliberately misleading by design, ... iwoca has been paid the borrowed money in full + extra, to match exactly the 5.15% that was understood at that time in the contract.

Are you honestly saying that, with all your paperwork and correspondence, at no point was it made clear that the 5.15% interest was per month and not per year? Can you share a redacted copy of the finance agreement?

gives the court power to protect sureties from unfair relationships.

What was unfair about the relationship between you as an individual and the lender? Was it not made clear what the personal guarantee was for?

If a lender's daily-interest model is deemed systemically unfair for individuals,

The problem for you is that a 5.15% monthly interest rate is unlikely to be considered an unfair daily-interest model for a business so that argument falls flat on its face...

I'll request a legal Specific Disclosure to demand access to those witnesses by forcing Iwoca to reveal their contact information on their TrustPilot page.

All well and good except that businesses don't have access themselves to a reviewers contact information so you can demand all you want but they can't supply something they don't have...

My 18 "witnesses" prove that iwoca's conduct is a system, not an accident.

You are deluding yourself, you need to look up the definition of 'confirmation bias'. 18 witnesses (that you don't even have contact details for or know if they're genuine) out of 50,000+ customers is not proof of anything.

So, for example, you borrowed 4000 GBP and paid 1000 GBP each month for 3 months. Should have cleared 3000 GBP, right? Nope! They would count only 600-800 as "Paid-Back" and the remaining 2200-2400 GBP goes all for INTEREST,

This is exactly the mere definition of "Unfair Relationship" in a nutshell!

Just no! No-one in their right mind would think every monthly payment would reduce the balance by the same amount without any consideration for interest, how would the interest ever get paid if that was the case? If that is your fundamental argument then you are going to have a very short-lived and expensive day in court.

 

[Mark T Jones]

The problem here is @perfumebrands didn't understand the contract, how loans work or what APR means.

Compounded by the fact that they are relying heavily on AI, churning out whatever irrelevant nonsense it tells them.

Which also probably explains why they never give a direct answer to a question - which won't go down well in court.

In fact this entire thread could be a case study highlighting the risks of relying on AI

 

[MikeJ]

Compounded by the fact that they are relying heavily on AI, churning out whatever irrelevant nonsense it tells them.

Not helpful Mark. We've already established he doesn't understand "Compound".

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Not helpful Mark. We've already established he doesn't understand "Compound".

Im the same I only understand "compound " if it works on my favour so to speak

 

[pentel]

It seems the OP has finally read the agreement and understands it as opposed to what they thought they read.
If only they had put as much effort in to reading and fully understanding the loan agreement before signing all of this could have been avoided.
I do suppose that if your back is against a wall and someone offers a lifeline then you are not too bothered about the cost. This leads to making rash decisions which you later come to regret.

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

This thread is giving me a headache!!.

On the one hand the OP is saying that they did not understand or they misunderstood the contract - I assume because they did not look into it deep enough or make their own detailed enquiries. Yet the OP is capable of now putting detailed effort into their case!

If I was a judge looking at this...and assuming the OP's legal arguments in this thread are correct, I would side with the other party on the evidence that the OP can clearly understand a very complex matter - the fact they chose not to do the same detailed exercise when taking out the loan can only go against the OP.

 

[Mark T Jones]

It seems the OP has finally read the agreement and understands it as opposed to what they thought they read.
If only they had put as much effort in to reading and fully understanding the loan agreement before signing all of this could have been avoided.
I do suppose that if your back is against a wall and someone offers a lifeline then you are not too bothered about the cost. This leads to making rash decisions which you later come to regret.

It's a genuine problem and one I feel strongly about and not just in urgent situations - my lead times are measured in months.

We are very slowly moving to e-sign, but most documents are still wet signed.

My personal approach is to email documents a few days prior to turning up with hard copies with recommendation that they read them, ask questions and seek professional advice if in doubt. When I turn up, most haven't even opened them.

After signing I advise that the lender will send counter-signed copies, but suggest they take copies now for records. They never do.

Unfortunately it's an open door for dodgy lenders and brokers to exploit

Though in this case there is no evidence that it has been exploited.

 

[Mark T Jones]

This thread is giving me a headache!!.

On the one hand the OP is saying that they did not understand or they misunderstood the contract - I assume because they did not look into it deep enough or make their own detailed enquiries. Yet the OP is capable of now putting detailed effort into their case!

If I was a judge looking at this...and assuming the OP's legal arguments in this thread are correct, I would side with the other party on the evidence that the OP can clearly understand a very complex matter - the fact they chose not to do the same detailed exercise when taking out the loan can only go against the OP.

If I was a judge I'd focus on the complete lack of evidence - even by consumer standards, there is no actual evidence of misselling.

The Op really is just scraping & cherry-picking AI to self-validate their flawed narrative.

 

[WaveJumper]

I will struggle to go back over the thread, remind me when is this going to court, be interesting to see how this goes