Lowell Portfolio I LTD · DRN-6008008

The complaint Mr B complains that Lowell Portfolio I LTD (Lowell) are pursuing him for a debt he doesn’t think they are entitled to collect. What happened Mr B’s complaint is that Lowell aren’t able to provide him with a signed agreement, to prove the debt they are pursuing him for is his. And as such they shouldn’t be pursuing him for it. He has also disputes they are the legal owners of the debt. Lowell didn’t uphold his complaint and so he brought it to our service. Our investigator didn’t think Lowell had done anything wrong, in summary they said: - Lowell had provided Mr B with a true copy of the credit agreement and the rules set out by the FCA say it doesn’t need to be a signed copy. - Lowell have provided him with a copy of the notice of assignment (NOA) which is all they are required to do to prove they own the debt and are entitled to collect it. Mr B disagreed with the investigator and so the matter has 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 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. If I’ve not reflected something that’s been said in this decision, it’s not because I didn’t see it, it’s because I didn’t deem it relevant to the crux of the complaint. 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. Mr B has mentioned laws that he feels support his stance. While I may not refer to them directly in this decision, I would like to assure Mr B that I have taken all relevant law, rules and regulations into account when deciding this case. Lowell’s right to collect the debt The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) sets out what’s expected of financial businesses in the Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC) rules. This includes what needs to happen when a debt is sold, as Mr B’s one was to Lowell. CONC 6.5.2 says: (1) Where rights of a lender under a regulated credit agreement are assigned to a firm, that firm must arrange for notice of the assignment to be given to the customer:

-- 1 of 3 --

(a) as soon as reasonably possible; or (b) if, after the assignment, the arrangements for servicing the credit under the agreement do not change as far as the customer is concerned, on or before the first occasion they do. [Note: section 82A of CCA] (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to an agreement secured on land. (3) A firm may assign the rights of a lender under a regulated credit agreement to a third party only if: (a) the third party is a firm; or (b) where the third party does not require authorisation, the firm has an agreement with the third party which requires the third party to arrange for a notice of assignment in accordance with (1). Lowell provided Mr B with the NOA. This is a standard document when a debt is sold from one owner to another. There isn’t anything obviously wrong with the NOA, and it contains all of the usual information I’d expect. So, in the circumstances, I don’t think there’s any reason not to rely on it. As such, I’m satisfied the NOA is sufficient to show Lowell are entitled to collect the debt. Valid copy of credit agreement Mr B made a request to Lowell for them to prove the debt was his. Lowell provided Mr B with a copy of the agreement but as it didn’t have a wet signature Mr B argues that it isn’t valid and so doesn’t prove he owes the debt. CONC 13.1.4 says: (1)The copy of the executed agreement should be a 'true copy' of the original. However, as confirmed in the case of Carey v HSBC Bank plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB), in this context the term 'true copy' does not necessarily mean a carbon, photocopy, microfiche copy or other exact copy of the signed agreement. There is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature. (2) The firm can reconstitute a copy. It can do this by re-populating a template of the relevant agreement form with the details of the specific agreement taken from its records. If the firm does provide a reconstituted copy, it should explain that that is what it has done, to avoid misleading the customer that this is a contemporaneous copy. Based on this I’m satisfied that the copy Lowell have provided to Mr B is sufficient to prove the debt is his and is valid, regardless of it not carrying a wet signature. So, I don’t believe Lowell are acting unfairly on relying on it as the rules clearly allow them to do this. Mr B has made another argument, saying he believes he already paid the debt to the original lender (OL). As soon as Mr B queried this, Lowell raised it with OL but they explained the debt had been valid and owing when they sold it to Lowell and that Mr B had not settled the account. At each point Mr B has raised concerns or queries, Lowell has placed a hold on the account

-- 2 of 3 --

and dealt with them – giving Mr B answers. I appreciate they may not have been the answer he wanted, but I’m satisfied Lowell have done what is expected of them. Bringing all of this together, I’m satisfied Lowell have acted fairly when pursuing Mr B for the debt in question and so I won’t be asking them to do anything differently here. I realise this isn’t the outcome Mr B was hoping for, but my decision ends what we – in trying to resolve his dispute with Lowell – can do for him. My final decision For the reason set out above, my final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Amber Mortimer Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --