Not upheld: debt collection practices, regulatory compliance (S78 CCA, SAR, GDPR), Deed of Assignment provision, harassment allegations complaint against Cabot Credit Management Group Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service about Cabot Credit Management Group Limited's handling of a debt account that had been transferred to them for servicing. His complaints included failure to respond to a S78 CCA request within 12 days, refusal to provide a Deed of Assignment, continued contact despite cease and desist notices, unlawful data processing, and inadequate handling of a Subject Access Request. The ombudsman found that Cabot was not required to hold the original credit agreement and statements, could not control the timing of obtaining them from the original lender, was not required to provide a Deed of Assignment (only a Notice of Assignment per FCA guidance), had legitimate grounds to contact Mr H regarding the debt, and properly handled the Subject Access Request by providing all information they held. The complaint was not upheld and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Cabot was not required to hold the credit agreement and statements upon taking over servicing, and therefore could not be faulted for the delayed S78 CCA response caused by waiting for documents from the original lender. Regarding the Deed of Assignment, the ombudsman noted conflicting court cases and observed that the FCA guidance requires only a Notice of Assignment, not a Deed of Assignment, suggesting debt companies would not continue to deny access if legally required. The ombudsman determined Cabot had a legitimate reason to contact Mr H regarding repayment of the debt regardless of any cease and desist notices, as they were entitled to ask for repayment even if the account were unenforceable. For CRA reporting, the ombudsman found Cabot were entitled to report accurate information (the default status) regardless of when they obtained the credit agreement. For the SAR, the ombudsman found Cabot provided the information they held and were not required to provide the Deed of Assignment, though noted their phrasing about 'formal' requests was incorrect.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website