Lowell Financial Ltd · DRN-6249494

The complaint Mr T complains Lowell Financial Ltd are unfairly reporting a default to his credit file for an unenforceable account. What happened As I understand it Mr T took out a credit account with a company I’ll refer to as P. The account fell into arrears, was defaulted and then sold to a debt purchaser. Mr T was told about this in a Notice of Assignment (NOA) dated 1 July 2024. The amount showing as outstanding in this letter was £4,159.82. Mr T has said on 6 September 2025 he made a request for documents under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (S78 CCA) – asking Lowell to provide a copy of the credit agreement, and other relevant documents. Mr T says the documents provided didn’t link the debt to him. But, despite this, Lowell continue to report a default to the credit reference agencies (CRAs) and pursue payment. Lowell said they’d provided the documents sent to them by P – which included nine credit agreements – and overall didn’t think they’d done anything wrong. Unhappy with this, Mr T asked us to look into things. One of our Investigators did so and didn’t uphold the complaint. Mr T didn’t accept this. I’ve summarised what I consider to be his key concerns: • He’s not asking us to determine enforceability, he’s asking us to decide if Lowell are fairly reporting the default to the CRAs • The documents provided aren’t compliant with S78 CCA • Lowell are in breach of data protection law, as they can’t explain how a credit agreement with an £800 limit has generated a debt of over £4,000 • Directing him to P for queries isn’t a viable solution • There is an unresolved dispute over the amount owed, so Lowell shouldn’t be asking him for repayment Overall, Mr T didn’t think Lowell had acted fairly – and suggested we should direct Lowell to provide an electronic audit trail for the agreements – and to reconcile them. So, as Mr T didn’t agree to our Investigator’s outcome, the complaint’s been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I think it’s important to explain I’ve considered all of the information provided by both parties in reaching my decision. If I’ve not reflected or answered something that’s been said it’s not because I didn’t see it, it’s because I didn’t deem it relevant to the crux of the complaint. This

-- 1 of 4 --

isn’t intended as a discourtesy to either party, but merely to reflect my informal role in deciding what a fair and reasonable outcome is. I also think it’s helpful to explain I’m required to take into account the various law, rules and regulations and guidance that’s been referred to. But I’m required to decide things on a fair and reasonable basis which is how I’ll explain my findings. In Mr T’s case what that means is I can’t decide if Lowell have broken any laws – such as the data protection law he’s mentioned. In general terms debt companies don’t routinely acquire all of the documents – such as credit agreements or statements of an account – from a lender. And, they’re reliant on the documents the lender produces, as the debt company isn’t the party who the account was taken out with. The credit agreements I’m aware Mr T has concerns the agreements themselves aren’t compliant – and therefore the debt is unenforceable. But, I can’t decide if the agreements are or aren’t compliant with the law as I’ve explained above. What I can decide is whether it’s fair for Lowell to reasonably believe these credit agreements relate to Mr T’s debt. Following Lowell’s request to P, they seemingly sent Lowell nine separate credit agreements. These agreements have Mr T’s name on them, the same email address he’s given to us, and he’s not said he didn’t live at the addresses contained in these documents. So, I’m satisfied it’s reasonable for Lowell to rely on these agreements as relating to Mr T. Other documents and account balance Mr T also asked for any other relevant information under S78 CCA. Typically, this would be a statement of account. Lowell were provided with a transaction listing. I can see why Mr T wouldn’t think this was helpful – as it doesn’t come with a running balance. But, this is what Lowell were given by P – so I can’t say Lowell did anything wrong – because their responsibility is to pass on what they’re given by P. In terms of the account balance, Mr T questions this because the credit agreements say the credit limit is £800. Of the credit agreements one is undated and the rest seem to be dated 27 October 2017. This could suggest it’s the same credit agreement. And all of them do show the credit limit of £800. If though I total up the credit limit of all the credit agreements provided by P, then this comes to more than £4,159.82 Lowell initially asked Mr T to repay. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable of Lowell to believe all of these credit agreements are separate accounts – as that’s what P gave them. In addition: • when the account was passed over to Lowell, they were told the balance was £4,159.82 by P

-- 2 of 4 --

• After the account was transferred to Lowell Mr T set up a repayment plan for £20 a month – despite being told what the balance of the account was at the time • When Mr T asked us to look into things he’s referenced the account as belonging to him Bringing all of this together, I’m satisfied it’s reasonable for Lowell to believe the balance when the account was passed to them is correct. CRA reporting Mr T also says because the account is unenforceable, then Lowell shouldn’t be allowed to report it to the CRAs. Whether the account is or isn’t unenforceable isn’t something I can decide as I can see Mr T is aware. But, for the purposes of addressing Mr T’s point, I’ll answer it as though the account is temporarily unenforceable. Lowell can’t currently report to the CRAs that an account is temporarily unenforceable as there isn’t a mechanism within the current reporting systems to allow for this. And, even if there was, the CRAs don’t currently have a way of displaying this data. So, while there is an argument to say the data could be inaccurate on Mr T’s credit file, to tell Lowell to stop reporting the account completely would arguably be more inaccurate. This is because I’m satisfied the reporting reflects the money owed, and repayment history on the account to date which is factual information. Additionally, enforceability can only be confirmed by a court, and even if a debt is confirmed as unenforceable, this doesn’t mean Lowell can’t still ask for repayment or treat Mr T as owing the money. Even if I accept not reporting the account as temporarily unenforceable causes an inaccuracy I’m not persuaded this leads to any detriment to Mr T for the reasons I’ve set out above. And removing the account information then shows an incomplete picture of someone’s credit worthiness – and removing it could also amount to something akin to credit washing which wouldn’t be appropriate So, I don’t find it unreasonable in these circumstances for Lowell to continue reporting the account in the way they currently are. Directing Mr T to contact P I understand Mr T doesn’t agree it’s viable for him to contact P regarding some of the concerns he has. It’s up to Mr T in terms of whether he raises his concerns to P or not – that’s his choice and I’ve no power to direct him to take any action. But, I don’t find Lowell are doing anything wrong in providing the information they’ve been given from P to him – so I won’t be asking them to do anything further. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr T to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Jon Pearce

-- 3 of 4 --

Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --