Financial Guardian (UK) Ltd · DRN-5853450

The complaint Mr A complains about the actions of Financial Guardian (UK) Ltd trading as Debt Guardians (DG) when they were providing debt counselling services to him. What happened As I understand it, Mr A had an existing debt solution in place with a debt charity but found it wasn’t working for him, as they were sending payments to his creditors later than required. This led to contact from the creditors which Mr A didn’t want. Mr A had also asked the debt charity to put a Debt Relief Order (DRO) in place for him, but they didn’t. Mr A approached DG asking to set up a DRO for him. After running through a number of debt options, DG recommended an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA). They passed Mr A’s details over to an insolvency practitioner (IP). Mr A says the process was rushed, DG didn’t capture his details correctly, and the IVA wasn’t a suitable option for his circumstances. Mr A added the IVA impacted his credit report. Mr A said he’d complained to DG and asked them for a Subject Access Request (SAR) at the same time, and when they didn’t reply he contacted our service. We contacted DG raising Mr A’s complaint to them. In short, DG didn’t think they’d done anything wrong. They didn’t agree they’d rushed Mr A on the phone or captured any of his details incorrectly. They also felt the IVA was the only suitable option for him because of his personal circumstances which included paying child maintenance. DG added when Mr A was dealing with the IP company, he’ll have gone through a significant period of additional due diligence. In respect of Mr A’s credit report, DG said he was already in a debt plan, so didn’t think they’d done anything wrong overall. Unhappy with DG’s response, Mr A asked us to investigate his case. DG did provide the SAR when replying to Mr A, but he says they didn’t provide all of the information he’d asked for. One of our Investigator’s explained we could only look at the actions of DG – we couldn’t consider anything about the actual process of implementing the IVA itself or the fees associated with doing so. IP’s fall outside of our remit to consider. But, we can look at DG’s actions in providing debt counselling. Our Investigator found DG hadn’t rushed Mr A’s application, nor had they provided incorrect information to the IP. But our Investigator found DG hadn’t replied to Mr A’s contacts when they should have which caused additional distress. Our Investigator awarded £100 compensation. When reaching this outcome our Investigator had been trying to reach DG for a period of time without any reply – so the case was passed to me. Following some further attempts, we reached DG. Our Investigator gathered more information and broadly reached the same outcome. Neither party accepted this.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr A said one of the key issues for him was being told to reduce the child maintenance he sends to his family abroad. He said he felt pressured to sign the paperwork with the lower figure to get the IVA. DG said: • The SAR was initially made to the IP not to them • They’ve provided everything required under the SAR when it was made to them later on As both parties still didn’t accept our Investigator’s outcome, the complaint’s back with me to formally 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 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 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. As a starting point I’d like to thank both Mr A and DG for their co-operation during what has been quite a confusing complaint. The IP business Mr A was referred to by DG shares some names in common, which I think has caused some of this confusion. In terms of the SAR, our Investigator explained to Mr A the correct body to raise his concerns with about missing information was the Information Commissioner’s Office – as there can be legitimate reasons why a SAR may not have all documents. I agree this is the right body to refer these concerns to, rather than this service, so, I won’t comment on this matter further. Advice Mr A says he was pressured into declaring he was sending less money to his family abroad than he actually was, and says the IVA was unsuitable for this reason. DG say Mr A was never going to be eligible for the DRO given his disposable income – and this is proven for various reasons including that he’d been turned down for a DRO by his previous debt counselling company. Mr A’s main evidence of his claim is written messages he’s said he received from an adviser with DG. DG have said they don’t think they’d have done this, but, even if they had then the messages are just guiding Mr A in terms of what to say. DG have explained that’s because of how rigid the IVA discussion process is. I’ve looked at Mr A’s evidence, and I’m not persuaded a fair interpretation is the one he’s suggested. Whether it came across that way to him I can’t say. But, I do think a reasonable interpretation is that DG were simply providing guidance about the IVA process to help Mr A and I’ve not seen anything else to suggest that’s incorrect. So, in the circumstances, I’m satisfied DG haven’t done anything wrong on this point.

-- 2 of 3 --

DG’s communication and replying to Mr A’s contacts Mr A says he raised a complaint to DG in late 2024 as well as a SAR and neither were responded to appropriately. DG have done what I consider to be a very thorough investigation into these issues. DG’s overall opinion is Mr A was talking to the IP rather than them, so they’ve not done anything wrong. But, I’m not completely persuaded by this. I say that because, DG and the IP company have names in common as I’ve said above. And, on at least one occasion, an employee for the IP company responded to Mr A using a DG email address domain name. I’ve seen nothing to suggest this was intentional, but it has clearly added to the confusion. And, as DG are responsible for their communications – which this was – then it’s only right and fair I hold them accountable for that. What this also means is I can’t be fully satisfied there weren’t other occasions where someone replied to Mr A from a DG email address. I acknowledge DG’s comments that they’ve tightened up their procedures and this won’t happen again. But, for me the key point is it did happen – on at least one occasion and possibly more. In the circumstances, I can’t be fully persuaded Mr A was only ever communicating with the IP when he says he was speaking to DG. I think because of this, Mr A’s confusion has at least partly been caused by DG’s communication. So, I’m satisfied it’s fair and reasonable to require DG to pay Mr A £100 compensation to reflect the confusion he’s been caused which they’ve contributed to. My final decision I partially uphold this complaint and require Financial Guardian (UK) Ltd trading as Debt Guardians to pay Mr A £100 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Jon Pearce Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --