You never asked for advice you asked for testimonials
Well nobody else has had this problem
The general idea with this loaned money supported by a personal guarantee is to pay the monthly payment
You did not do this and the lender is seeking an order via the court to recover their money !
You have no defence here you and nobody else but you invalidated the terms of the agreement and the lender is within their right to refuse your offer of payment.
You do need advise from the people here if you want to improve your situation but that's up to you however copy and pasting legal paragraphs does not win you a dodgy case in court
You are saying this because you do not have the full picture of what Iwoca is doing. You are acting as if you are totally on their side. Let me try to prove you wrong, one last time.
I owe you an explanation of the tactic used by iwoca. I will let you be the judge now.
Iwoca started by making a money claim (MCOL) within less than 14 days of giving me their "Final Decision" to my complaint, citing precisely that they are FDA/Financial Ombudsman compliant, and advising that I have the right to make a complaint with FOS within 180 days of the date of their Final Response.
So, this is violation #1. They broke the Ombudsman rules they pretend to be abiding by, under the excuse (which is documented) "Sorry, Ombudsman may take several months to resolve the issue and we cannot wait this long". Really? How is this company still FDA-Compliant? I HAVE NO IDEA!
Bear in mind I advised them of my intention of filing a complaint with the Ombudsman, and they told me, go ahead, do it ... Then rushing prematurely to make MCOL claim? Is this a responsible lender, or is it nothing else than a freaking liar/cheater??? You tell me!
Moving on, In MCOL, I submitted my defence as a guarantor, thinking this is all what it takes to present my case (Since I am named the GUARANTOR, then what gives?). But no, I made a fatal mistake. The defence needed to be submitted from my company's side too (As if it is not enough for me to provide a response as a guarantor, that the Company's response would be exactly identical/the same). Pure berurucracy really, but that's the law I guess. I understand it now, but at the time I was unaware that such a secondary submission is required, due to my lack of legal training/understanding.
What would a responsible lender do in this case? A responsible lender will notice that a separate Company's defence submission is missing after the deadline, and kindly ask the guarantor to do submission for his company's defence too (by giving a short notice, like within a week for example) before they consider filing for a CCJ. Right? ... RIGHT???
Not Iwoca. We already established that Iwoca is not a responsible lender and they have been gifted this mistake on a golden plate. They never warned me of the error. Instead; THEY TOOK TOTAL/FULL ADVANTAGE OF IT, obtaining a CCJ judgment by default due to missing Company's defence despite the presence of my own defence. Bear in mind my Company has a single shareholder/Director/Employee which is myself (It is a One man's self employment business for making a living) which means my defence as guarantor is the same as Company's defence in presentation/structure, and my Company's defence won't be any different, still signed for/submitted by me as the person of significant control. Did this even matter to Iwoca? They didn't give a dime about it. Happily inflicting maximum damage where it hurts the most!
So, this is violation #2, total lack of duty of care and responsibility to its clients!
Luckily, their plan did not work. Some faith in the UK legal system has been restored, as I originally filed a Counterclaim, a judge looked into my defence and decided it is not fair that I get the CCJ without a proper trial to submit my full defence just because Iwoca triggered it without receiving my company's defence, so she decided to forward the case to a "Small Claims Track" instead, and this is what kept my chances of having a fair battle against Iwoca.
And please refer to my other posts for other violations, I could easily list at least 8 more, including how Iwoca skipped the Ombudsman, the deceiving nature of the agreement, the mistreatment documented in almost a hundred emails, the process of obtaining the Default, the interests that were added later AFTER THE DEFAULT, the non-consideration of my settlement proposals, and so on and on and on...
Here is what I stated in my Counterclaim (At that point I did not have a clue how Iwoca managed to get the decision for CCJ so quickly, but I only found out later with assistance from an independent insolvency firm that told me EXACTLY what Iwoca did):
Defence Particulars Continued:
Iwoca issued their final response on 26 August 2025, triggering my
statutory right to escalate to FOS within six months. On 09
September 2025, they demanded a FOS reference number prematurely.
On 16 September 2025, they filed this County Court claim—just 16
working days after their final response and 2 days after their
coercive email. This sequence demonstrates a deliberate attempt to
pressure me into premature litigation, violating FCA rules and
undermining my protected rights.
A formal complaint was submitted to the Financial Ombudsman
Service on 17 October 2025. The case is currently awaiting
assignment and reference number. This complaint relates directly
to the subject matter of the claim and includes allegations of FCA
rule breaches under DISP 2.8.1R, DISP 3.3.4R, PRIN 6, PRIN 7, and
CONC 3.5.3R. Once the reference number is issued, it will be
provided to the court.
Iwoca advertised a 5.15% monthly interest rate, which appeared to
apply to the monthly repayment amount, suggesting a simple and
predictable cost structure. In reality, this rate was applied
monthly to the full outstanding balance, recalculated each month
based on the remaining principal. This resulted in aggressive
compounding, with the total cost over 48 months exceeding 120% of
the original loan. The presentation was misleading, designed to
mimic affordability while concealing the true cost of borrowing,
in breach of CONC 3.5.3R and PRIN 7.
Despite repeated attempts to engage in fair resolution—including
requests for restructuring, interest suspension, and participation
in a Debt Management Plan—Iwoca refused all options and continued
to compound interest. Their conduct contributed directly to my
company’s near-bankruptcy, especially during a period of prolonged
income disruption due to withheld funds from eBay.
I have already repaid the original £4,300 borrowed, along with the
5.15% interest on top of that principal—an amount that should
reasonably represent the full and fair profit from this loan. I
dispute the remaining financial demand in its entirety. It exceeds
any ethical threshold and should be fully waived due to Iwoca’s
breach of FCA rules and deliberate misrepresentation.
Relief Sought
I respectfully request that the court:
Strike out the claim due to procedural impropriety and breach of
M7QZ0T3X
FCA rules
Alternatively, stay proceedings immediately pending resolution of
the FOS complaint
Acknowledge that the claim was filed during a protected regulatory
window and is therefore invalid
Take no further action until the Financial Ombudsman Service has
concluded its investigation
I reserve the right to submit further evidence once the FOS
reference number is issued.
Please note: I request that all future correspondence regarding
this case be sent to my home address, not the business address
currently listed. I have contacted MCOL to update this.
Has your opinion been shifted now?
