Not upheld: debt collection practices, account enforceability, ongoing contact and alleged harassment complaint against PRA Group (UK) Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6301234 of 2026-05-05T00:00:00+00:00. debt collection practices, account enforceability, ongoing contact and alleged harassment complaint against PRA Group (UK) Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6301234 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | PRA Group (UK) Limited |
| Product | debt collection / credit agreement |
| Claim type | debt collection practices, account enforceability, ongoing contact and alleged harassment |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr N complained that PRA Group continued pursuing a debt despite him raising a dispute with the original lender B. The debt had been sold to PRA, who issued a Notice of Assignment in May 2025. Mr N requested a Subject Access Request asking for the Deed of Assignment and account documentation. PRA initially treated the account as unenforceable due to lack of documentation but resumed enforcement once the credit agreement was received in August 2025. Mr N alleged harassment through multiple contacts and a November 2025 letter threatening legal action. The ombudsman found that PRA acted fairly by requesting documentation from B, treating the account as temporarily unenforceable, and resuming contact at a reasonable frequency (less than 3 contacts per week initially, then less than 2 per week). The ombudsman noted PRA was unaware of any dispute with B as Mr N did not mention it in his SAR, and that the legal claim was between Mr N and B, not PRA's responsibility. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that PRA acted appropriately in requesting documentation from B to establish enforceability, treating the account as temporarily unenforceable pending receipt of documents, and then resuming enforcement once documentation was received. The frequency of contact (less than 3 per week initially, then less than 2 per week) was not excessive or unreasonable. PRA was not aware of any dispute Mr N had with B as this was not mentioned in his SAR. The ombudsman noted that only a court can determine if an account is unenforceable, and PRA's approach was reasonable. The contact regarding potential legal action was appropriate as PRA was unaware of the previous claim between Mr N and B. Data processing was appropriate given the legitimate debt and servicing arrangement.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| PRA Group (UK) Limited, all decisions | 100 | 14% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website