Not upheld: debt collection practices, field agent visits, misleading communications, credit file searches, data processing complaint against Topaz Finance Limited trading as Hyalite Mortgages
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6240144 of 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00. debt collection practices, field agent visits, misleading communications, credit file searches, data processing complaint against Topaz Finance Limited trading as Hyalite Mortgages. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6240144 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Topaz Finance Limited trading as Hyalite Mortgages |
| Product | mortgage |
| Claim type | debt collection practices, field agent visits, misleading communications, credit file searches, data processing |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy was ordered. The ombudsman declined to require Topaz to: stop doorstep visits, provide detailed field agent instructions and reports, remove credit searches or ban future searches, or provide compensation and apology. The ombudsman did expect Topaz to comply with regulatory requirements in future communications and to have recorded Mr I and Mrs W's preference for written contact. |
Summary
Mr I and Mrs W complained about Topaz Finance Limited's debt collection practices regarding a mortgage shortfall of approximately £15,000 arising from a 2014 property sale. They objected to an unauthorized field agent visit, disputed the accuracy of visit records, felt that communications about a county court judgment were misleading, and were concerned about soft credit file searches and resulting credit score drops. They sought to restrict Topaz to written contact only and to ban future home visits. The ombudsman found that Topaz was acting fairly in pursuing the longstanding unsatisfied debt, that field agent visits were a reasonable step, that the CCJ wording had been clarified, and that soft searches were appropriate and did not impact credit scores. The complaint was not upheld, and no forward-looking restrictions were imposed on Topaz's future conduct.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman concluded that the complaint should not be upheld because: (1) Topaz was acting fairly in pursuing a longstanding debt from a 2014 judgment that had not been fully satisfied, and Mr I and Mrs W had not taken active steps to dispute the debt's existence or Topaz's right to enforce it; (2) sending field agents was not an unreasonable step given the circumstances, and the discrepancies in visit dates were not material to a fair resolution, particularly as Mr I and Mrs W had made clear they would not engage with agents; (3) while the CCJ wording could have been clearer, Topaz had clarified it referred to the 2014 judgment; (4) soft credit searches do not impact credit scores and are a reasonable tool for Topaz to assess financial position; (5) the ombudsman could not impose forward-looking restrictions on Topaz's future conduct as this would be unfair given the uncertain future position of the case; and (6) the ombudsman's role is to provide accessible, less formal resolution and does not require forensic-level detail on every disputed point.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Topaz Finance Limited trading as Hyalite Mortgages, all decisions | 4 | 25% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website