Lowell Portfolio I LTD · DRN-5886538

The complaint Mr M complains about the actions of Lowell Portfolio I LTD (Lowell) when trying to recover a debt from him that he says he doesn’t recognise. What happened Mr M’s complaint centres around a revolving credit account, in Mr M’s name from a provider I’ll refer to a P. P sold the account to Lowell in September 2021 and in October 2021 a notice of assignment letter was sent to Mr M telling him of the transfer. In 2022 Mr M disputed the debt with P and Lowell. Lowell placed the account on hold at that time while P investigated Mr M’s concerns. P confirmed to Lowell in October 2022 that the debt was valid and owing and the dispute had been answered. Mr M brought a separate complaint against P to our service, he said the account was not his and had been taken out fraudulently, the Ombudsman didn’t uphold his complaint. Following this, Lowell wrote to Mr P and explained given the outcome of his dispute with P, they considered the debt to be valid and owing. Mr M didn’t respond to any further communication about the debt until January 2025, when he called them and said the debt wasn’t his and asked them to only contact him in writing. He followed this request up in an email, but from a different email address to the one Lowell held for him, so they asked him to verify himself by providing his date of birth. He did this in an email to them on 27 January 2025. Lowell didn’t remove his email address or phone number from their systems at this time and sent him further emails and continued to contact him by phone. Mr M complained to them about this. Lowell upheld his complaint and apologised for the further contact. Mr M remained unhappy and so brought his complaint to our service, when doing so he raised the additional points: - Lowell’s contact amounted to harassment - he had concerns about how they had obtained his phone numbers and email address - he believes the debt should be statute barred Our investigator didn’t uphold Mr M’s complaint. Mr M remained unhappy 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

-- 1 of 3 --

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. Preferred method of contact and harassment I would like to start here by explaining that only a court can make a determination on harassment. So, I will be looking solely at the volume, frequency and tone of communication to determine if I think it was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case. Having looked at the level of correspondence, I haven’t found it to be excessive in nature or unprofessional in tone. I have listed the level of correspondence below: - one email in each of these months: January, April, May and June 2025 - eight attempts to call in June 2025 - two text messages in June 2025 It is accepted by both parties that Mr M asked for all correspondence to be by post, and while it is good practice for a business to follow this, Lowell aren’t obligated to do so where they are trying to establish contact to collect payments. What I mean by this is if Mr M were failing to engage with the debt, then it wouldn’t be unreasonable for Lowell to use any means to try and contact him. However, I can’t see that Lowell did try to contact Mr M by post, so I think they should have tried to adhere to his requests in the first instance before continuing to attempt contact using phone and email. That said, they have apologised to Mr M for this and have since removed his email address and phone number from the profile they hold for him. I’m satisfied this is a fair way to resolve this matter. Concerns about how Lowell obtained his contact details Lowell have shown us they hold other debt accounts in Mr M’s name. Under these accounts he has previously confirmed telephone numbers and his email address. Lowell much like many other companies have a main profile for their customers with each account then linked to that profile. So, Lowell had those details, from dealing with him on his other accounts. I don’t find this to be unreasonable. So, I won’t be upholding this part of his complaint. Statute Barred Mr M says he believes the debt should be statute barred. Only a court can determine if a debt is statute barred, so this isn’t something I can make a finding on, so I won’t be looking into this further. However, I can see our investigator did set out the rules for Mr M around statute barring and also put Mr M’s concerns to Lowell, who confirmed that they don’t consider the debt to be statute barred at this time. Bringing all of this together, I accept Lowell got something wrong when they attempted to contact him by email and phone, but I’m satisfied their apology and corrective action was a fair way to deal with Mr M’s complaint, so I won’t be asking them to do anything more here. I realise this isn’t the outcome Mr M was hoping for but my decision ends what we – in trying

-- 2 of 3 --

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. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Amber Mortimer Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --