Lowell Portfolio I Ltd · DRN-5862048

The complaint Mr L complains about the actions of Lowell Portfolio I Ltd (Lowell) when pursuing him for two debts he says he didn’t owe. What happened Mr L’s complaint centres around two credit accounts in relation to the purchase of mobile phones. The original lender (OL) defaulted the accounts as they were in arrears and sold them to Lowell. The balance on account A was £1,026.26 and Lowell purchased this in May 2021. Account B was purchased in January 2022 and had an outstanding balance of £925.98. Mr L says he didn’t owe this money to OL, and the accounts shouldn’t have been sold to Lowell. He raised concerns about this but for three years Lowell did nothing about it. But they continued to report the defaults ruining his financial standing. Lowell say: - Mr L contacted them in 2021 when they only had account A, in this contact Mr L told them he didn’t owe the money and would be considering legal action – he didn’t want a complaint raised at the time - They wrote to him asking him to contact them about the accounts between 2021 and January 2023 - Mr L contacted them in 2023, disputing both accounts and telling them he would provide them with evidence – he didn’t send anything to them. So, they continued to pursue him for the debt - Mr L contacted them in April 2025 and made a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR). At this time Lowell had appointed a debt collection agency to manage the account (DC) and DC notified them Mr L was disputing the debts and saying OL had confirmed he didn’t owe the money. Lowell raised disputes with OL at that time and placed the accounts on hold. - OL said they had no record of contact with Mr L on the accounts and confirmed to Lowell they should carry on with the collections. Mr L brought his complaint to our service. While his complaint was here Lowell escalated the dispute with OL to a higher level and OL agreed to buy the debts back and Lowell arranged to stop reporting the accounts to Mr L’s credit file. Our investigator didn’t uphold Mr L’s complaint. Mr L disagreed with the investigator’s findings and so the matter has now been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I realise that I’ve summarised this complaint in less detail than the parties and I’ve done so using my own words. I’ve concentrated on what I consider to be the key issues. The rules that govern this service allow me to do so. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy to either party, but merely to reflect my informal role in deciding what a fair and reasonable outcome is. This also means I don’t think it’s necessary to get an answer, or provide my own answer, to every question raised unless it’s relevant to the crux of the complaint. Before I go onto my findings, I wanted to say that Mr L has since had a new complaint with Lowell as they re-reported the accounts to the credit reference agencies – they upheld that complaint and paid Mr L £150 compensation for the error. This is a new event and isn’t something I will be considering as part of this complaint, if Mr L is unhappy with the resolution Lowell provided for that event he will need to raise it separately. When a debt purchaser such as Lowell purchases a debt, they normally buy them as part of a bundle which can ordinarily include a large number of accounts. They are entitled to rely on the information provided to them by OL about those accounts. And they buy them in good faith that they are owing, valid and free from dispute at the time. I appreciate that Mr l first told Lowell he didn’t owe any money in 2021 when he contacted them about account A, but he didn’t provide any basis for this and told them he didn’t want to raise a complaint and was thinking about pursuing legal action. Despite them writing to him asking him to get back in contact so they could discuss the account he didn’t, so I don’t find it unreasonable for them to have continued with collection activity on the account, including reporting the default. When he contacted them a second time about accounts A and B he told them he would provide them with some evidence to support his claim he didn’t owe anything towards the accounts. He didn’t do this so again I don’t think it was unreasonable for Lowell to have continued collection activity or reporting the defaults. When Mr L later provided evidence that he felt showed he didn’t owe the money, Lowell raised a dispute with OL. OL couldn’t verify what Mr L was saying and gave clear answers to Lowell that they had no record of any contact with Mr L about accounts A and B. so I think it was reasonable for Lowell to assume the evidence Mr L provided might relate to a separate account with OL. I say this because there isn’t anything on the evidence Mr L provided from OL that has a record of an account number that matches accounts A and B. And the balance being discussed in the correspondence with OL differs to the balances that were on accounts A and B. Bringing all of this together, I think Lowell acted reasonably when dealing with Mr L’s dispute and didn’t do anything wrong in continuing with the collection activity of the account or the reporting of them. Up until the point when OL agreed to buy the debts back. I realise this isn’t the outcome Mr L was hoping for, but my decision brings to an end what we – in trying to resolve his dispute with Lowell – can do for him. My final decision For the reasons set out above, my final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Amber Mortimer Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --