Many Safaricom M-Pesa users have expressed frustration over stagnant Fuliza loan limits, with some reporting their limits remaining at KSh 1,000 for years despite consistent service usage. This widespread concern has prompted Safaricom PLC to clarify the factors influencing Fuliza limit growth, emphasizing that it goes beyond mere M-Pesa transactions.
Safaricom highlights that a crucial determinant for qualifying for its loan facilities, including Fuliza, M-Shwari, and KCB M-Pesa, is a customer’s Credit Reference Bureau (CRB) status. A negative credit score, reflecting a poor repayment history across various loan types and institutions, can significantly hinder limit increases. Customers are advised to check their CRB status via *433# to understand their standing.
Beyond CRB, the telecommunications giant stresses the importance of overall Safaricom service engagement. While M-Pesa usage is a factor, consistent activity across voice calls, SMS, and data services also plays a vital role. Safaricom reviews Fuliza limits every 90 days, and low activity across these services can result in an unchanged limit.
To access higher Fuliza limits, Safaricom recommends several strategies. Customers should increase their overall usage of Safaricom and M-Pesa services. Repaying Okoa Jahazi promptly and maintaining an active Safaricom line with regular top-ups are also beneficial.
Furthermore, consistent saving on M-Shwari and KCB M-Pesa accounts without frequent withdrawals can positively impact one’s creditworthiness for higher limits. Delayed repayment of existing loans, particularly M-Shwari loans, and frequent opting in and out of the Fuliza service can negatively affect one’s limit, potentially requiring users to rebuild their credit profile from scratch.
The popularity of Fuliza, which allows M-Pesa users to complete transactions even with insufficient funds, has rose sharply, especially among low-income earners seeking small, accessible loans.
Despite its convenience, the service carries a facility fee of 1.083% or an annualised 395.2%, highlighting its higher cost compared to traditional bank loans. The ease of access has led to concerns about over-reliance and loan defaults, particularly among the youth.
