- Trust or legitimacy is the most common coded reason, appearing in 29.1% of recorded warnings.
- Fees and charges account for 14.7%, while recovery conduct accounts for 8.4%.
- A borrower’s warning identifies a concern; it does not independently verify fraud or misconduct.
Trust or legitimacy is the most common coded primary reason in 29.1% of recorded borrower-warning events in Relvo’s digital-credit research (n=320), snapshot dated 2 October 2026. Fees and charges account for 14.7%, and recovery conduct for 8.4%. The finding concerns warnings in the evidence, rather than all borrowers.
How to read the numbers: Shares describe sampled accounts or opinions, with their bases shown. Reviews were sampled across star ratings, which over-represents critical voices. Separate evidence sets can come from the same accounts. Small bases are indicative; bases below 10 are reported directionally.
A warning differs from an unfavourable opinion because the account advises someone else against using the product. That makes its stated reason worth examining. It still does not establish that the warning is factually correct or that another person changed their decision after reading it.
The India digital credit market research separates trust concerns from price and service concerns. A product response that explains a fee might address a specific cost question while leaving uncertainty about the borrowing relationship unresolved. The right investigation depends on what the account actually alleges or asks.
Unspecified or other reasons account for 21.9% of warnings. That limits any claim that one explanation covers the whole problem. Even where trust is coded, the research does not independently establish the sequence of events or attribute responsibility among the parties involved.
Relvo’s consumer behavior research records the reasons people give for warning others. Product and service teams can compare those accounts with communications and case records before deciding how to respond. The chart cannot rank lenders by legitimacy, establish misconduct or measure the effect of warnings on applications.
Questions about the research
Do warnings establish that a lending app is fraudulent? No. They record borrower concerns and stated advice to others. Independent verification would be needed to assess a particular allegation.
Is this based on lender transaction data? No. It uses coded borrower accounts and opinions. It is not loan transaction data and not a representative survey.
Related research: The India Digital Credit Market Report, 2026 on NBW Brain examines borrower decisions, experiences and behavioural patterns, with evidence available through its Market Brain.
Methodology
Source: Relvo digital-credit research, snapshot dated 2 October 2026. Borrower accounts and opinions are coded to a fixed codebook with evidence and coding checks. Accounts span October 2025–October 2026. Reviews were sampled across star ratings; critical voices are over-represented. Each share refers to the event, profile or opinion set named alongside it. A profile is a coded account, not a verified unique borrower or credit file. Opinion and action layers may overlap. Bases of 10–29 are indicative; bases below 10 are reported directionally. Findings do not establish population prevalence, loan approval rates, legal breaches or causal effects.
You must be logged in to post a comment.