Not upheld: Debt collection practices complaint against Opos Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss T complained that Opos Limited, acting on behalf of debt servicer C, contacted her inappropriately on a work mobile phone, failed to conduct checks before requesting repayment of an old statute-barred debt, mishandled her Subject Access Request, and continued contacting her after she raised concerns. The ombudsman found no fault with Opos' conduct, determining that they reasonably relied on contact details provided by C, that statute-barred debts remain legally enforceable, that the SAR was properly delegated to C with clear communication, and that continued contact was justified as Miss T had not specifically disputed the debt until her formal complaint. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a fair and reasonable standard rather than strict legal interpretation. For the work phone contact, Opos reasonably relied on contact details provided by C and could not have known it was a work number. For the statute-barred debt, the ombudsman noted that statute-barred debts continue to exist and can be requested for repayment, so contacting Miss T was not wrong. For the SAR, Opos properly communicated they were passing it to C as the responsible party. For continued contact, Miss T had not specifically disputed the debt until her formal complaint, only asked who Opos were, so continued contact was not unreasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website