PRA Group (UK) Limited · DRN-6242703

The complaint Mr A complains that PRA Group (UK) (PRA) Limited are pursuing him for a debt that he says is unenforceable and so they should write it off. What happened I set out the background to this complaint and my initial findings in my provisional decision dated 9 March 2026 (below): Mr A’s complaint centres around a loan account taken in his name with a lender I’ll refer to a M. The account was opened in August 2022 and due to the account falling into arrears was defaulted in October 2023. M sold the account to a debt purchaser (DP) in April 2024. DP appointed PRA to service the account. A Notice of Assignment (NOA) was sent to Mr A on 12 April confirming this. In June 2024 Mr A contacted PRA disputing the debt was his and made a request for documentation regarding the loan, the documents included: - A copy of the signed agreement - A statement of account - Correspondence or documentation relating to the debt - Proof PRA are legally entitled to collect the debt - A copy of the NOA PRA put the account on hold while they requested information from M to comply with Mr A’s requests. In September PRA provided an outcome to Mr A’s dispute saying they were satisfied that he was responsible for the debt and gave copies of the NOA, default notice and a reconstituted copy of the credit agreement which had been signed electronically. Mr A also raised a complaint with PRA, about the dela in providing him the requested documentation, and confusing communication telling him his account was on hold but then still sending him letters. PRA didn’t uphold his complaint, they said they hadn’t been able to provide the information he had requested within the obligatory 12 day period and so the account had become unenforceable until they are able to produce the documents. They said the delays were due to them waiting for M to provide the information. They also said they didn’t feel the information they had given had been confusing, as the account had been placed on hold while it was in dispute and the letter they had sent had been an annual statement which they are obligated to send. Mr A was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to this service. He

-- 1 of 4 --

has told us that PRA’s treatment of him is affecting his mental health and he would like: - a review of PRA’s handling of the matter - a ruling on if PRA’s pursuit of the debt is appropriate - PRA to cease all collection activity - an assessment of if PRAs actions are misleading To resolve matters he would like the debt written off and for PRA to remove any reporting of it from his credit file. Our investigator didn’t think PRA was responsible for the majority of the points Mr A was complaining about as they aren’t the debt owner. He said they were only responsible for passing the dispute on and keeping Mr A informed of its progress. And that within that he didn’t’ think they had done anything wrong. Mr A disagreed and so the matter has 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 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. Before I go into my findings, I would like to explain that I will be considering all of Mr A’s complaint against PRA as they are the debt servicer here and are executing the rights of the lender in their capacity as a debt collector. Dispute Mr A raised a dispute over the account and asked for documentation which he is entitled to under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. PRA placed a hold on the account while it gathered those documents from M. This is standard practice and what I would expect to happen. If a business can’t provide these documents within 12 days, they treat the account as unenforceable until they can provide them. In this case PRA weren’t able to provide the documents within the specified time period and as such treated the account as unenforceable. In September they were able to provide some of the documents, but from what I have seen haven’t yet been able to provide the statements of the account showing how the debt accrued. If they haven’t yet provided these, they should arrange to do this. Once they have done so Mr A will have been provided with all of the documentation he is entitled to. Mr A specifically asked for a signed copy of the credit agreement.

-- 2 of 4 --

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 reconstituted copy PRA have provided to Mr A is sufficient to prove the debt is his and is valid. So, I don’t believe PRA is acting unfairly on relying on the reconstituted copy of the CCA as the rules clearly allow them to do this. And they have already explained that the document never had a wet signature – it was electronically signed in the first instance. Misleading communication Mr A said the communication from PRA was confusing as they placed the account on hold but then sent him a letter. I accept that this may have confused him but feel their explanation that they had kept the account on hold and only sent him an annual statement that they were obligated to send is sufficient to address any confusion, so I don’t find they have misled him here. And I haven’t seen anything else to support they have been misleading in their communication with him. Reporting to the credit reference agencies (CRAs) PRA have a duty to make sure any reporting of the account to the credit reference agencies is an accurate reflection of it. PRA can’t currently report to the CRAs that an account is temporarily unenforceable as there isn’t a mechanism within the current reporting systems to allow for this. And, even if there was, the CRAs don’t currently have a way of displaying this data. So, while there is an argument to say the data being displayed could be inaccurate on Mr A’s credit file, to tell PRA to stop reporting the account completely would arguably be more inaccurate. This is because I’m satisfied the reporting reflects the money owed, and repayment history on the account to date which is factual information. Additionally, enforceability can only be confirmed by a court, and even if a debt is confirmed as unenforceable, this doesn’t mean PRA can’t still ask for repayment or treat Mr A as owing the money. Even if I accept not reporting the account as temporarily unenforceable causes an inaccuracy I’m not persuaded this leads to any detriment to Mr A for the reasons I’ve set out above. And as I have explained above, I’m satisfied Mr A is responsible for the debt and so removing the account information would show an incomplete picture of his creditworthiness – and could also amount to something akin to credit washing which wouldn’t be appropriate. So, I don’t find it unreasonable in these circumstances for

-- 3 of 4 --

PRA to continue reporting the account in the way they currently are. Bringing all of this together, I’m satisfied that PRA have given the information needed to show Mr A is responsible for the debt, even though they may still need to provide him with statements. And so, I won’t be saying that it is inappropriate for them to consider the debt valid and owing, and I won’t be asking them to write the debt off as a resolution to his complaint. Debt write off consideration Mr A has told us that he has some significant health issues and that the debt is exacerbating these. I have a great deal of empathy for his situation. And, if he feels that his circumstances warrant consideration of the debt being written off, I suggest that he provide evidence to support this to PRA for them to make a consideration. I would emphasise to Mr A though that there is no obligation for PRA to write the debt off only to consider his request. And it’s likely they will want to see both medical and financial evidence to support any such request, which is entirely reasonable. I realise that this isn’t going to be the outcome Mr A was hoping for but trust that my explanations have given him some assurance that his concerns have been considered. My provisional decision For the reasons set out above, my provisional decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. I invited both parties to respond giving their comments or any other arguments. PRA responded saying they had no further comments to make. Mr A didn’t respond. 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 neither party provided any additional comments for consideration, I see no reason to depart from my provisional findings. My final decision For the reasons set out above and in my provisional decision, my final decision is that I do not uphold Mr A’s complaint about PRA Group (UK) Limited. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Amber Mortimer Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --