Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Capquest Debt Recovery Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms M complained that Capquest Debt Recovery Limited unfairly refused her request to write off a debt and continued reporting it to credit reference agencies despite her dispute. Ms M disclosed mental health vulnerabilities and reported negative income, though she remained employed and owned property. The ombudsman found no legal requirement for Capquest to write off debts and determined that write-off is only reasonable when someone cannot afford to repay and has no prospect of future repayment. Since Ms M's circumstances could improve and she owns property (against which Capquest could obtain a charging order), the ombudsman found Capquest acted fairly. The ombudsman also found the credit reporting was accurate and appropriate. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

There is no requirement for financial businesses to write off debts in specific circumstances; it is discretionary. It can be reasonable to write off a debt only when someone cannot currently afford to repay it and has no reasonable prospect of doing so in the future. Ms M is employed (despite negative income) and owns property, meaning her circumstances could improve and Capquest could pursue a charging order against her home. The incomplete vulnerability forms did not provide sufficient detail to require debt write-off. Capquest is required to report accurate information to credit reference agencies, and raising a dispute does not require removal of the account. Ms M was treated fairly and reasonably.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website