Not upheld: debt collection practices, treatment of vulnerable customer, alleged unfair relationship under Section 140A Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint against T.B.I. Financial Services Ltd.

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that TBI Financial Services Ltd. irresponsibly pursued a debt, treated him unfairly through excessive contact, ignored his vulnerabilities, attempted to prevent him from complaining to FOS, and threatened to add interest to his balance. The original loan of £3,000 was taken out with lender B in June 2021, and after Mr S fell into financial difficulties, the account was sold to TBI in May 2024. TBI contacted Mr S multiple times between May 2024 and July 2025 without response, then instructed solicitors to pursue legal proceedings. The ombudsman found that TBI's contact was reasonable given the circumstances, that TBI could not be held responsible for Mr S's vulnerability before being informed of it, and that the three-month delay in pursuing legal proceedings after Mr S indicated his intention to complain to FOS demonstrated fair treatment. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that TBI's contact with Mr S regarding a legitimate debt was not excessive or unreasonable, particularly given 14 months of non-response. The decision to instruct solicitors was reasonable in the circumstances, and TBI appropriately delayed legal proceedings for three months after Mr S indicated his intention to complain to FOS. Regarding vulnerability, TBI could not be held responsible for not accommodating Mr S's vulnerability status before being informed of it on 30 July 2025. The ombudsman noted that TBI had offered support on multiple occasions and that Mr S had not provided the income and expenditure information or health documentation typically expected to support vulnerability claims. The irresponsible lending complaint was appropriately referred to the original lender B, as TBI bore no responsibility for the initial lending decision.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website