Upheld: Account administration errors complaint against ACI-UK LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6456581 of 2026-06-26T00:00:00+00:00. Account administration errors complaint against ACI-UK LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6456581 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-26T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | ACI-UK LIMITED |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Account administration errors |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | ACI must pay Mr B £1 plus 8% interest from the date they signed for receipt of the letter until payment, and pay £100 compensation for inconvenience caused |
Summary
Mr B sent a letter by recorded delivery to ACI-UK LIMITED on 30 September 2024 requesting confirmation of a statute-barred debt and enclosing a £1 postal order with a section 77-79 Consumer Credit Act request for documents. ACI signed for the letter but initially denied receiving it, later admitting it had been misplaced. ACI claimed they never received the postal order and did not process the section 77-79 request. Mr B provided evidence of sending the postal order including purchase receipt, a photo, and proof of special delivery. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding it more likely than not that the postal order was sent and misplaced by ACI, and ordered ACI to pay £1 plus 8% interest and £100 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that ACI's initial denial of receiving the letter, despite signing for it, and the subsequent discovery that the letter had been misplaced, made it more likely than not that Mr B sent the postal order and it was also misplaced by ACI. Mr B provided compelling evidence of sending the postal order. Since ACI did not process the section 77-79 request, they should have returned the postal order or provided an equivalent refund.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| ACI-UK LIMITED, all decisions | 28 | 20% |
| Account administration errors, all decisions | 26,544 | 25% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 47,449 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website