Not upheld: loan administration, debt validity dispute, reasonable adjustments, documentation provision complaint against Swift 1st Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms O complained about a second charge secured loan taken out in 2007 that had been transferred twice following lender liquidations, with Swift appointed as administrator in April 2023. Ms O disputed the loan's validity, the arrears balance, and various administrative issues including the use of her middle name, lack of documentation proving the loan's transfer, and documents not being provided in large print despite her health needs. The ombudsman found that most concerns fell outside its jurisdiction as they related to the original lender or the unregulated current lender, and that Swift had not administered the loan incorrectly from April 2023 onwards. The complaint was not upheld, though Swift agreed to provide future correspondence in large print.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that most of Ms O's concerns fell outside the FOS's jurisdiction because they related to the original lender (now in liquidation) or the unregulated current lender. Swift, as the administrator, could only be assessed on its actions from April 2023 onwards. The ombudsman found Swift had not administered the loan incorrectly, had provided documentation when requested, and was entitled to pursue legal action given the debt had been unpaid since 2014. Regarding the large print issue, Swift could not be faulted for not providing reasonable adjustments it was not aware were needed, but it has now agreed to do so.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website