The High Court in Belfast has refused leave to apply for judicial review of a Financial Ombudsman Service decision that found a County Down credit union had acted fairly when it offered a man a reduced home improvement loan subject to a guarantor requirement. The judgment, delivered on 29 April 2026 by McLaughlin J, dismissed all five grounds of challenge brought by James Malcomson, who represented himself.

Malcomson had applied to the Dromara and Drumgooland Credit Union in January 2025 for a loan of £44,000 to fund home improvements to a property he owned in Belfast. The application was supported by five quotations for various works. The credit union offered him £33,000, conditional on a suitable guarantor, citing his lack of credit history with the institution and the size of the loan. After the credit union confirmed in April 2025 that it would not alter that position, Malcomson complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

The Ombudsman issued a final decision on 15 October 2025 concluding that Malcomson had not been treated unfairly. It found that the credit union had kept him informed throughout the process, had followed its own procedures, and had given sufficient explanation for the reduced offer. Malcomson then sought judicial review of that decision on five grounds: error of material fact, failure to consider relevant evidence, procedural unfairness, error of law, and apparent bias.

The court rejected the first two grounds together. Malcomson argued that the Ombudsman had misread the quotations he submitted, believing some figures related to the Belfast property when they actually concerned a second property he co-owned with his father in the Dromore area. McLaughlin J found that the Ombudsman's decision letter, read in full and in context, accurately distinguished between the two properties and showed a correct understanding of which quotations related to which loan purpose. No arguable error of fact was established.

On procedural unfairness, Malcomson argued the Ombudsman should have issued a provisional decision before finalising its findings. The court found that a detailed preliminary finding had been sent to Malcomson on 1 July 2025, to which he had responded the same day. The court held that this constituted a fair procedure and that the applicant had been given a proper opportunity to make representations.

The error of law ground centred on the guarantor requirement. Malcomson contended that the credit union had initially indicated it might consider alternative security arrangements but then reverted to requiring a guarantor without adequate justification. The court found that the credit union's lending policy expressly permitted a guarantor request, that this had been flagged to Malcomson on the loan application form, and that the credit union's agreement to reconsider the matter did not create any obligation to change its position. The Ombudsman's conclusion that this was fair and reasonable was found to be lawful.

The final ground - apparent bias - was also refused. Malcomson had argued the Ombudsman had uncritically accepted the credit union's account without independently evaluating the evidence. McLaughlin J found nothing in the decision letter or associated correspondence to suggest the Ombudsman had approached the complaint with anything other than an open mind. The application for leave was dismissed in its entirety.