Gracombex

Gracombex Ltd, trading as The Money Platform, is a UK company founded in 2015 and listed on the FCA Register with FRN 716455. The FCA Register shows the firm is directly authorised for certain lending activities, including permission to operate as a peer-to-peer lending platform and to approve financial promotions; it is not an appointed representative.

Direct FCA authorisation means the firm is subject to FCA rules and supervision, but it does not mean investor capital is protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) for typical P2P loan losses. Investors should therefore treat investments as higher risk and rely on published disclosures and regulatory records when assessing the firm.

The platform operated a peer-to-peer lending model, matching individual lenders with UK borrowers seeking short- to medium-term consumer loans. Standard onboarding steps for P2P platforms (registration, KYC and suitability/appropriateness assessments) are reported to have been used by The Money Platform, but specific detailed processes and timings are not available in public sources and are therefore unverified.

Investors should confirm precise onboarding, KYC and suitability procedures directly with the firm (or via archived disclosures) because those processes affect how quickly funds can be deployed and whether the platform assessed investor understanding of P2P risks.

The core product was unsecured consumer peer-to-peer loans, described as short- to medium-term and classified by the platform as high risk. The Money Platform reported that it offered an Innovative Finance ISA (IFISA) wrapper for eligible P2P investments and charged an administration fee to investors that it described as proportional to interest earned; the exact fee rate was not published in available materials and is therefore unverified. The reported minimum investment was £300.

Reported returns from the platform's Outcomes Statement showed a forecast gross return for 2025–26 of 16.9% p.a., and an actual investor return (after losses and fees) for 2025–26 of 15.9%. These figures are historical for the period stated and should not be read as guaranteed or forward-looking.

Loans were unsecured, and the platform did not provide investor guarantees. The FSCS does not generally protect P2P loan investments; customers could complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) if there were service or conduct failings. The returns published are historic for specific years — investors must treat them as past performance, not projections. The lack of security and FSCS protection materially increases risk compared with bank deposits.

The offering was suitable only for investors who understood and accepted high capital risk, potential illiquidity and borrower default risk. The platform reported no secondary market, so loans were intended to be held to repayment or maturity; this limits liquidity and the ability to exit early.

Investors needing easy access to cash or capital preservation should not use such products; those seeking higher yield must be prepared for volatile returns and possible permanent loss of capital.

Strengths

• Direct FCA authorisation (FRN 716455) — the firm is subject to FCA supervision, which provides regulatory transparency on permissions and complaints handling.
• Publication of Outcomes Statements with historical return and delinquency figures — useful for investors assessing realised performance over time.

Risks and issues

• Investment risk: P2P loans are high risk, unsecured and not usually covered by FSCS; capital can be lost.
• Liquidity: no secondary market reported — illiquid investments must generally be held to maturity.
• Ombudsman complaints: the Financial Ombudsman Service has considered complaints about lending arranged via the platform. Some FOS decisions were upheld in part or in full (finding inadequate affordability checks in specific cases), while at least one FOS adjudicator did not recommend upholding a separate complaint (finding checks proportionate). The decisions are case-specific; they show that the FOS has on occasions found the firm's affordability checks insufficient and on at least one occasion found them adequate — investors should review individual FOS case outcomes to understand the nature and frequency of upheld complaints.

The mix of published returns and FOS case-work means investors need to weigh past performance against governance and conduct risks evidenced by complaints and adjudications.

Operational/continuity issues

A probe cited the firm website as offline/DNS error and the platform is reported as inactive or unclear; this requires independent verification (for example, via the FCA Register, Companies House filings or archived web records) before assuming the firm has ceased trading.

Reputation and complaints

Several complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service concerning affordability and lending decisions have been reported and in multiple cases the FOS found against the firm. However, at least one FOS adjudication did not uphold a complaint — the outcomes are case-specific and must be read individually.

Review sites

The Money Platform has an 'Excellent' rating on Trustpilot (reported TrustScore 4.6/5) — ratings should be considered alongside independent regulatory records and FOS decisions because review-site sentiment does not substitute for regulatory or financial due diligence.

Operational continuity, multiple FOS findings against the firm and mixed public sentiment together increase the need for caution and documentary verification before investing or assuming the platform is available for new investment.