Partially upheld: Debt collection practices complaint against Prestige Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs B complained that Prestige Finance Limited mis-sold a second charge secured loan, harassed them despite maintaining contact, applied unfair fees, and failed to support them during financial difficulty following their 2016 bankruptcy. The ombudsman found jurisdiction limited by time restrictions on the mis-sale complaint and earlier fee/harassment complaints. On the merits, the ombudsman upheld the harassment complaint in part, finding that while Prestige's general contact approach was reasonable, it unreasonably failed to adjust its communication strategy after learning Mr B was vulnerable with mental health issues in September 2019, continuing to contact him frequently despite knowing Mrs B was the primary contact. The ombudsman rejected complaints about fees (fairly applied) and financial difficulty management (largely appropriate), awarding £150 compensation for harassment-related distress.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Prestige's general contact approach was reasonable for an account in arrears, it failed to adequately adjust its communication strategy after learning Mr B was vulnerable in September 2019. Despite knowing Mrs B was the primary contact and Mr B had mental health issues, Prestige continued attempting contact with both parties at similar frequencies. The ombudsman identified approximately six to seven unreasonable contact attempts between September 2019 and October 2020. However, the ombudsman found fees were applied fairly under relevant rules, the financial difficulty management was largely appropriate given the two-way nature of forbearance, and the mis-sale complaint was outside jurisdiction ratione temporis.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website