Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Lantern Debt Recovery Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained to the FOS that Lantern Debt Recovery Services Limited had not done enough to remedy the impact of an IT security incident in April 2025 that resulted in unauthorized access to his personal data. Mr T sought compensation, citing the distress caused by the incident, his vulnerability, and the seven-month delay before notification. Lantern had offered a complimentary twelve-month credit monitoring and fraud protection subscription service as remedy. The ombudsman found that Lantern's remedy was comprehensive and fair, noting that the incident was contained quickly, was a ransomware attack targeting Lantern's business rather than individual data, and there was no evidence of actual misuse. The ombudsman determined that the protective monitoring service was more appropriate than monetary compensation and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman assessed whether Lantern had done all they could to put Mr T back in the position he would have been in but for the incident. The ombudsman found that the credit monitoring service was comprehensive and went as close as possible to achieving this objective. The ombudsman noted that the incident was contained quickly, was targeted at Lantern's business rather than individual data, and there was no evidence of actual misuse. The ombudsman concluded that a monetary award would not be more appropriate than the protective monitoring service offered, as the service provides practical protection against future harm rather than compensation for hypothetical future events.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website