Partially upheld: Debt collection practices complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B, director and owner of a company, complained to FOS after HSBC withdrew a business account overdraft in 2024 and pursued him personally for repayment under a personal guarantee allegedly given in 2000, which he disputed. He also complained about HSBC's failure to properly handle his Subject Access Requests, which the ICO confirmed was a breach. The ombudsman found the guarantee pursuit complaint fell outside FOS jurisdiction as Mr B did not qualify as an eligible complainant, but upheld the SAR handling complaint. The ombudsman determined that HSBC's offer of £200 compensation for the SAR delay was fair and reasonable, reflecting the frustration caused without evidence of wider impacts.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the complaint about the personal guarantee pursuit fell outside FOS jurisdiction because: (1) Mr B could not be classified as a consumer regarding business debt as the limited company is legally distinct from him; and (2) the guarantor category was only introduced in April 2019 and is not retrospective, so a 2000 guarantee does not qualify. However, the SAR complaint was within jurisdiction as it arose from Mr B's personal accounts with HSBC. The £200 compensation offered was deemed fair and reasonable for the frustration and upset caused by the delay, as the issue was eventually resolved and no wider impacts were demonstrated.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website