NCO Europe Limited · DRN-6263358

The complaint Miss M complains NCO Europe Limited are responsible for reporting adverse information to her credit file for a loan she’d repaid on time. What happened I issued a provisional decision setting out what’d happened, and what I thought about that. I’ve copied the relevant elements of this below, and they form part of this final decision. Miss M took out an account, which has been passed to a debt company. The account is currently being managed by a debt servicer – and they’ve asked NCO to administer the account. Miss M was in the process of purchasing a new home, for which she was putting in place a mortgage. She’s explained due to the adverse information NCO are responsible for, she’s lost the new home she was planning to buy which has caused her a significant amount of distress. NCO accept they’d made an error. They explained the debt servicer is responsible for updating Miss M’s credit file they can’t do it themselves. But they’d given the debt servicer the wrong information. They were sorry for this, had told the debt servicer – who said it could take six to eight weeks to update her credit file. Unhappy with this, Miss M asked us to look into things. In doing so, she explained she’d lost a deposit of £500 for the home she was planning to buy and provided evidence of this from the sales agent. While Miss M’s complaint was with us, NCO made an offer of £200 to resolve the complaint. Miss M rejected this, so our Investigator considered things. She felt NCO should: • Pay £450 compensation • And refund any of Miss M’s financial losses if she could provide them NCO rejected this, saying they thought their compensation of £200 was fair. Our Investigator asked Miss M for evidence of the losses she’d incurred, but for personal reasons she wasn’t able to provide them – and asked for the case to be progressed as it was – so it’s been passed to me to decide. What I’ve provisionally 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 think it’s important to explain I’ve considered all of the information provided by both parties in reaching my decision. If I’ve not reflected or answered something that’s been said 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

-- 1 of 3 --

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. I’m sorry to have read about the very difficult situations Miss M has experienced as a result of this complaint, and what’s happened while this complaint was going on. I have a significant amount of sympathy for her. But, being impartial means I’m required to critically assess whether the outcome is fair to both parties. Here, NCO have accepted they made an error – so, all that’s left for me to decide is what should be paid to Miss M. This is split into two components – financial loss, and compensation for the distress she’s experienced as a result of NCO’s actions. Addressing financial loss first, I’m not currently persuaded there is anything I can or should award here. I know our Investigator said NCO should pay this if Miss M could provide it – but to date this hasn’t been provided. I completely understand Miss M has very good reasons for not providing this. But that essentially means I can’t be satisfied the reason Miss M’s mortgage was turned down was due to this event. If Miss M wants to provide more information then I’d be happy to consider it. But, for me to be persuaded I should require NCO to compensate her for this, I’d usually expect to see something from the lender confirming the main or sole reason the mortgage application was turned down was due to this negative information. That said, Miss M is of course welcome to provide anything she thinks supports her claim. In the absence of this, I’m left with considering the impact on her as a result of the adverse information being reported. Here, I need to separate out Miss M’s conviction she was turned down for the mortgage because of this – which is financial loss and I’ve explained above – from the impact of her thinking this would have an impact. In essence I’m satisfied there would have been an impact on Miss M because of this. At an already stressful time of purchasing a new home NCO have caused negative information to be recorded against her. And then, because of NCO’s role they couldn’t immediately remove it. There’s no question this would have been frustrating and upsetting for Miss M. But, when I separate this from the falling through of the house purchase, I do think the £200 NCO have offered is a fair outcome. Responses to my provisional decision NCO replied to say they accepted my outcome. Miss M didn’t reply by the deadline. 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. As NCO accepted my outcome, and Miss M didn’t reply, I’ve seen no reason to change my outcome which is NCO should pay Miss M £200.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision I uphold this complaint and require NCO Europe Limited to pay Miss M £200 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss M to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Jon Pearce Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --