Our Culture At QuickBrands

An insight into the way we conduct ourselves and the way we operate

We operate within one of the most closely scrutinised and socially sensitive sectors of the UK economy – the High-Cost Short-Term Credit (HCSTC) market. As a firm, we are subject to oversight from regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), regular attention from media commentators, and growing interest from policymakers.

This level of scrutiny is both expected and warranted. The history of the sector, particularly during the early 2000s, was marked by poor practices and inadequate oversight. At the time, the regulatory bar was low, and it was not uncommon to see firms push the boundaries of acceptable conduct. We were aware of cases where individuals were sanctioned or banned by the Office of Fair Trading – though in truth, enforcement at the time was rare and often too late. Some of the conduct we became aware of, while never publicly disclosed, would be unthinkable under today’s regulatory standards.

We believe that firms operating in this space must consistently maintain standards well above the regulatory minimum. Anything less is unsustainable.

Our core objective is to deliver value to our shareholders through strong, consistent performance. However, there are two fundamentally different approaches to achieving this:

One is short-term in nature – rapid expansion, aggressive monetisation, and the hope of a high-value exit.

The other is long-term – focused on stability, compliance, and sustainable growth.

We have always taken the long-term view. While it may offer fewer headline-grabbing moments, it is the only approach that delivers resilience through economic cycles and regulatory change. We have observed many firms prioritise short-term gains with the assumption of being acquired – a strategy that rarely materialises and often results in failure.

Our commitment is to build a business that lasts – one that is both commercially successful and ethically grounded.

A clear example of this mindset was our decision to avoid selling Payment Protection Insurance (PPI), even at the height of its popularity in the lead-up to 2010. While many lenders chose to pursue the significant short-term revenue it offered, we took the view that the product was not appropriate for our customer base.

Our decision was based on principle, not on some clever foresight of regulatory consequences. We weren’t smart enough to predict what was coming – we just knew what felt right at the time.

That said, when large-scale redress schemes were introduced only a few years later, it validated our strategy. Many lenders – including relatively small operators – faced compensation claims running into the millions. Several were unable to withstand the financial and reputational damage.

Had we followed the same route, we would not be in business today.

Whilst we agree that caution is often wise, it must be evidence-based and balanced - particularly when it comes to financial products. One such product, which we have a long history with, is the Self Cert mortgage. We continue to advocate for it. It was, without question, one of the most liberating financial innovations of the last 300 years, especially for the self-employed, who finally found a viable route onto the property ladder.

We can already hear the objections - accusations that Self Cert mortgages helped cause the 2008 financial crash. But this is where facts and evidence must take precedence over headlines and hysteria. There is no credible data to suggest that Self Cert mortgages were to blame for the crisis. In fact, Self Cert is not the same as subprime, despite the two being frequently conflated.

We searched extensively for any evidence showing Self Cert mortgages failed at higher rates than other mortgage products - and found none. On the contrary, anecdotal evidence from our interviews with accountants indicated that Self Cert loans were the second least likely to default, behind only prime mortgages. These were sound products, unfairly demonised by sections of the media and some political and banking figures seeking to deflect blame.

Contrary to popular belief, Self Cert did not mean “no evidence.” Applicants often had to provide substantial deposits - sometimes 20–30% - which acted as a very real form of risk mitigation.

The real danger to the mortgage market came from 125% mortgages handed out to borrowers on low, fixed incomes. That was always unsustainable, and it was those products - not Self Cert - that played a central role in the collapse.

Our point is simple: our culture values caution - but it must be evidence-led caution, not one driven by media pundits, political opportunists, or self-proclaimed financial “experts.” These people have no place shaping lending policy. We will always speak up when it's time to defend sensible, responsible, and historically viable products like Self Cert.

At QuickBrands, we believe in speaking plainly – especially when difficult topics arise. We are not afraid to express a viewpoint, provided it is grounded in fact, logic, and fairness. On multiple occasions, we have been asked – or instructed – by regulators to remove or amend published content which was clearly an opinion piece. This is where we draw a firm line.

We will not censor or retract an article simply because it expresses a controversial or unpopular opinion. If a factual error is identified, we will correct it. But if the content reflects our considered view, we will stand by it.

We have always aimed to advocate for the interests of the average consumer or borrower – even if, at times, that position may be misunderstood.

A clear example of this occurred some years ago when we published a piece arguing that individuals who knowingly lie on loan applications in order to gain financial benefit should face criminal prosecution. The view was based on the principle of fraud prevention – not punishment for financial hardship. However, it was misrepresented by some media outlets as a call to imprison anyone who missed a loan repayment, which was categorically untrue.

Ironically, many of the same commentators later called for the imprisonment of a former U.S. president for allegedly misrepresenting asset values on loan documents – despite the loans being repaid. That call echoed our earlier point, albeit in even more extreme terms.

We value our independence. It allows us to speak without fear or favour – and we will continue to do so when we believe an issue matters to consumers, the industry, or wider society.

Trust is the foundation upon which our business is built. It is one of the most valuable assets any organisation can earn - and one of the easiest to lose. Once compromised, trust is rarely restored. For this reason, we embed a culture of integrity across all areas of our operations, ensuring that every interaction, every decision, and every communication reflects the highest possible standards.

We demonstrate our commitment to trust through complete transparency in our offering - credit solutions that are appropriate, affordable, and accessible to the majority of applicants. Our approach is not influenced by commission structures or short-term financial incentives. Instead, our focus remains on ensuring that each applicant is matched with the most suitable product for their individual circumstances.

Over the past 16 years, we have not had a single complaint upheld against us. We believe this is a unique achievement within the lending and credit broking sectors - including during the period in which we operated under a full Consumer Credit Licence and offered credit directly to consumers. This record is a reflection of our ongoing commitment to compliance, fairness, and customer-first decision-making.

However, we acknowledge that there are challenges beyond our control. One such challenge within the UK credit market is the targeting of vulnerable individuals by unauthorised overseas entities misrepresenting themselves as legitimate lenders or established brands. These entities often request advance payments for loans that are never issued. This practice has been a matter of concern for many years and one we have actively campaigned against for over a decade.

While we cannot eliminate these practices entirely, we remain committed to raising awareness and educating the public. We continue to advise consumers never to make upfront payments in return for a loan. If an unsolicited contact appears overly generous or unrealistic, it should be approached with caution. Regrettably, the tactics employed by such fraudulent actors continue to evolve - making detection and prevention increasingly complex. We now regulary heard from victims who have lost over £750.