Not upheld: debt collection procedures and county court judgment complaint against T.B.I Financial Services Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms U and her brother Mr U complained to the FOS about TBI's actions in obtaining a CCJ against them for a loan debt. Ms U raised five complaint points, but the FOS determined only two were within its jurisdiction: whether she was notified of the debt sale to TBI, and whether TBI wrote to the correct address before obtaining the CCJ. The ombudsman found TBI properly sent the Notice of Assignment to the address on file and that Ms U should have notified creditors of her address change. The CCJ complaint was dismissed without merit consideration as it was more suitable for court proceedings, since any FOS decision would directly impact the existing court judgment. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that TBI properly sent the Notice of Assignment to the address held on file by the original lender, and it was Ms U's responsibility to keep her creditors updated with her current address. Regarding the CCJ complaint, the ombudsman dismissed it without considering merits under FCA DISP rules, as any decision on whether TBI fairly obtained the CCJ would directly impact an existing court judgment. The matter is more appropriately dealt with by the court itself, either to consider Ms U's defence if it was not received, or to acknowledge the court's prior decision if it was.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website