Insights for consumers
Check your budget to see if you can afford to make repayments before taking out a loan.
Consumers who have concerns about a loan, insurance product, fees, or other financial service should raise those concerns as soon as possible. It is important to read documents from financial service providers to be sure everything is as expected. Waiting many years before reviewing documents is likely to mean that FSCL is unable to investigate a complaint.
Where a debt is legally assigned, the purchaser of the debt may acquire the original lender’s contractual rights, including the right to charge interest on the debt.
What happened?
In 2026, Marcus complained about a personal loan obtained in 2017 and a loan top-up in 2018. He said the payment protection insurance attached to the loans had been mis-sold, that the charges were excessive, and the lending irresponsible. Marcus said the debt should be written off.
Marcus also complained that the debt collection company, to whom the debt had been assigned by the original lender in 2025, should not have been charging interest on the debt.
What was FSCL’s view on the complaints about the events in 2017 and 2018?
We decided we could not investigate the complaints about the original lending, insurance, and fees because they were made too late.
Under FSCL’s Terms of Reference, a complaint cannot generally be considered if more than six years have passed since the complainant became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the acts, omissions, facts, or events giving rise to the complaint.
Although Marcus said he only recently realised the lending may have been unfair, we noted that the key facts about the loan, fees, insurance, and interest rate were disclosed when the loans were taken out. The key facts were also available to him over the following years. We therefore concluded that the complaints about those matters fell outside the six-year time limit.
A person does not need to know that they may have a legal claim before time starts running. The relevant question is often whether they knew, or should reasonably have known, the facts they later complained about. In Marcus’ case, all the documentation about the loans had been provided to him at the time he took out the loans. Further, in making his arguments, Marcus relied on some regulations that had come into force after the loans and insurance had been taken out.
What was FSCL’s view on the interest charged by the debt collection company?
We looked at this issue on its merits because this happened more recently.
The original lender had assigned the debt to a debt collection company. Marcus said that because the debt had been sold, the debt collection company should not be able to continue charging interest.
We did not agree. In this case, the original lender had assigned all their rights under the loan to the debt collection company. The original lender had the contractual right to charge interest and, under the assignment, this right passed to the debt collection company. When the debt was assigned, the debt collection company provided Marcus with notice.
We found the debt collection company were entitled to continue charging interest according to the loan agreement they had acquired.
How did FSCL suggest that the complaint should be resolved?
We did not uphold the complaint and closed our file.
