Not upheld: Debt collection practices complaint against ACI-UK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that ACI-UK LIMITED failed to provide legal proof of debt ownership (a Deed of Assignment) and provided an incomplete Subject Access Request response. Mr S argued ACI was legally required to provide the DOA under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and should not process his data or report to Credit Reference Agencies without it. The ombudsman found that while conflicting court cases exist, the FCA's Consumer Credit Sourcebook explicitly requires only a Notice of Assignment, not a DOA, and debt purchasers would likely have sought legal advice if a DOA were universally required. The ombudsman also found ACI had legitimate grounds to process Mr S's data given the outstanding debt. The ombudsman upheld ACI's offer of £50 compensation for poor handling of the initial Subject Access Request as fair and reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the FCA's DISP rules requiring a fair and reasonable outcome based on law, regulations, and good industry practice. Regarding the DOA, the ombudsman noted conflicting court cases exist on this issue, the FCA's CONC rules explicitly require only a Notice of Assignment (not a DOA), and debt purchasers would likely have sought legal advice if a DOA were universally required. The ombudsman concluded ACI was not required to provide the DOA and the NOA was sufficient. On data processing, the ombudsman found ACI had a legitimate reason to process Mr S's data given the outstanding debt and that GDPR provides lawful bases for such processing. The ombudsman noted the ICO is the appropriate body to investigate data protection breaches. The ombudsman was satisfied ACI was reasonably contacting Mr S based on matching account information.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website