From: Gatis Pakalns gatispakalns@gmail.com
To: ola.degerfors@hygglo.com
Cc: axel.hellstrom@hygglo.com, resolutions@fatllama.com, henrik.frasen@hygglo.com
Subject: Re: Non-Returned Camera – Booking 3591788
Date: 3 December 2025 at 10:15
Dear Ola,
I hope you are well. My name is Gatis, and I am a Fat Llama/Hygglo lender, writing regarding a non-return camera dispute, the details of which you can find in the email thread below. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
I have carefully reviewed what I understand to be the Resolutions team’s final decision. Given that my involvement with Hygglo has resulted in the loss of what is, for me, a very expensive work tool, I believe I deserve a response that is logical, evidence-based, and clearly grounded in Hygglo’s policies.
To understand the decision, I would like to clarify a few specific points in the Resolution team's last email of 27 November.
The changing description of return.
In the email on 18 November, the Resolution team set out what appeared to be a clear statement of policy:
When is a return “complete”?
When the item is handed to you or to an explicitly agreed alternative person/location that you’ve confirmed in writing. A photo of an item on a shelf does not, by itself, prove handover or a completed return.
What counts as an “agreed-upon” method?
Clear, explicit agreement. Conditional language such as “might be able to” isn’t, on its own, sufficient; we look for a confirmed arrangement and a verified handoff.
When does the Guarantee cover “non-return”?
If the borrower cannot evidence a completed handover (to you or to an expressly agreed proxy) and you never took possession, we assess it as a non-return.
This made sense to me and, importantly, matches what any lender would understand from Hygglo’s public information about the Lender Guarantee.
In the 27 November email, however, the Resolutions team says that the position has somehow changed because, since 18 November, they have spoken to the borrower, reviewed the WhatsApp messages again, looked over their guidelines, and discussed the case as a team.
I am genuinely struggling to understand how any of those things can change the policy they quoted before.
Could you please clarify how this is possible, unless there are internal guidelines that contradict the information communicated to Hygglo users? Did the internal team discussion effectively result in a decision to ignore the policy as it was explained to me on 18 November?
In particular, I am confused that while the Resolutions team first explained that conditional language such as “might be able to” is not sufficient to form an agreed return method, in the final decision, that same type of conditional language is treated as fully sufficient to transfer all risk away from the borrower and remove my access to the Lender Guarantee.
Treatment of the evidence.
In the same final email, the Resolutions team argues that because I inform about concierge as a possible option and did not explicitly forbid it, I “accepted” that method and the risk that goes with it. They rely on phrases like “it should work, but this evening is safer” and the fact that I gave information about the concierge to conclude that the return was complete when the renter left the camera in the mailroom.
From my perspective, this selectively quotes and reframes the exchange while ignoring the context of the renter’s actions:
- Early on the morning of the return day, I messaged the renter on the Fat Llama platform asking what time would be convenient. As we had previously verbally agreed to confirm the exact return time on the day. I explained that I would be home in the evening, and that would be the best time to return. This message was ignored by the renter.
- A few hours later, the renter texted saying he was already on the way for a 1pm return we had never agreed on.- I replied, saying that I would not be home at that time.
- Under pressure, I tried to appear accommodating, not to risk a negative review and informed about the concierge possibility. I repeated that the evening in-person return was safer and downplayed the concierge option.
- Renter never confirmed that they will indeed attempt the concierge option, so I had no reason to believe they might actually go ahead with it.
- In the end, the renter arrived at a different time than he said he would and dropped off the camera at the mail room.
I believe that anyone looking at the evidence would clearly see that the renter simply wanted to return the item at whatever time suited them. They dismissed my suggestion of a safe, in-person return three times and instead chose an unsafe return method, accepting responsibility if anything went wrong, which, unfortunately, it did.
None of this context appears in the reasoning. Instead, the decision focuses narrowly on the fact that I mentioned concierge as a fallback and did not use the exact words “do not use concierge”, and then treats that as a full, explicit agreement that the concierge drop would complete the return.
Finally, the following line in the Resolutions terms email is especially confusing: “Communication regarding drop off should be done before the rental to avoid any confusion.”This seems to support my case rather than undermine it. We did, in fact, have a verbal understanding with the renter that the exact return time would be agreed on the return day, and I clearly attempted to do that early in the morning. The renter did not respond to that attempt and instead unilaterally changed the return time twice.
What this process suggests about the Hygglo Lender Guarantee.
Going through this process, I have sadly got the impression that the Resolutions team is prepared to stretch and reverse Hygglo’s published information, and even their own statements, in order to avoid what, to any lender reading the Lender Guarantee, appears to be a straightforward non-return case.It is disheartening to see the platform effectively siding with an irresponsible renter who ignored agreed arrangements and chose an unsafe return method, while my own attempts to be flexible and polite are reinterpreted as waiving my rights.
More importantly, seeing how this has played out in practice has made me concerned not just about my own case, but about the wider effect on other lenders using Hygglo. The way the Lender Guarantee has been applied here suggests that the information on the website may be giving lenders a reassuring picture of protection that does not actually match how claims are handled. That kind of gap between expectations and reality is worrying, both from the point of view of user trust and, potentially, from the perspective of how such guarantees are expected to operate in the UK.
My Next steps.
I believe it is beneficial for both sides that I am transparent about my next steps.
- First, I am expecting a proper response to the Subject Access Request I submitted on 25 November. If Hygglo fails to properly comply with my SAR, I will submit a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, as is my right under UK GDPR. I will address this in more detail at the end of this email.
- I am drafting a complaint to Trading Standards, focusing on the concern that the Lender Guarantee is being applied in a way that gives lenders a false sense of security. Marketed as protection for non-returns, but denied in what appears to be a clear non-return case. This raises serious questions around misleading assurance and transparency that are potentially affecting many users of the Hygglo platform.
- I am also preparing a small-claims action against Hygglo / Fat Llama seeking compensation for the value of my camera, based on how the Lender Guarantee was applied in this case and the concern that it may give lenders a misleading impression of the protection they actually have.- Once that claim is ready, I will send a Letter Before Action. In it, I will again offer to settle for compensation covering the value of the camera and a reasonable amount reflecting the significant time and disruption this dispute has caused, including loss of use of a tool I rely on professionally.
- I have also set up a small blog, Hygglost.com, where I am documenting my experience of attempting to obtain fair compensation for my lost camera. I will publish all the correspondence with Hygglo.com there so that other lenders can see, in practical terms, how a Lender Guarantee dispute is actually handled in practice. I might have also tested a Meta adverts campaign, to get this blog in front of a relevant audience and seen surprisingly high click-trough rates.
While I am moving forward with these steps, I want to stress that the door remains open for Hygglo to reconsider the decision on my claim and resolve this matter in line with the Lender Guarantee as it is presented to lenders. A fair, policy-consistent resolution would, I believe, be the best outcome for everyone involved.
Subject Access Request.
Finally, I need to address the SAR point from the Resolutions team's last email.
Your Resolutions team’s response to my Subject Access Request is not compliant with Article 15 UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, because it incorrectly states that the information I requested “does not relate to personal data.” Under Article 4(1), personal data includes any information relating to an identified person, which the ICO confirms can include internal emails, case notes, internal messages, and decision-making records that refer to or affect that person. To comply with Article 15, you must conduct a reasonable search and disclose all personal data relating to me – not only basic account or profile information – redacting third-party details where necessary.
Items you must supply under Article 15, and why each qualifies as personal data:
- Internal communications referring to me or my case
(emails, internal chat, case notes, internal summaries)
These contain information about me or my claim, and therefore fall squarely within the definition of personal data (Art. 4(1)).
- Internal records showing how the decision on my claim was made
(decision logs, internal notes, comments attached to my case)
These document a decision about me, and ICO guidance confirms such material is personal data subject to disclosure, with redactions only for third-party privacy.
- Borrower communications that refer to me or my instructions
Any parts mentioning me, my actions, or my instructions are my personal data; you may redact the borrower’s personal data, but must disclose sections relating to me.
- Any internal scoring, flags, or trust/risk indicators applied to my account
These evaluate or profile me as a user and therefore constitute personal data.- Any automated or AI-based processing used in assessing my claim
If automated tools influenced the decision, Article 15(1)(h) requires disclosure of the existence of such processing and meaningful information about the logic involved.
Thank you to anyone at Hygglo who has taken the time to read this lengthy email. I appreciate that everyone is busy and that this might not be an easy case to handle. My hope is that by setting out my concerns clearly, we can either reach a fair resolution in this specific case or at least bring some important issues about the Lender Guarantee and internal processes into the open.
Kind regards,
Gatis
