When a Debt Sale Didn’t End Credit Reporting
This entry documents a data-accuracy dispute involving a historic Shop Direct Group (Very) catalogue account that had been sold to Lowell, but continued to be reported on credit reference files by the original lender.
The issue examined here is not the existence of a debt, nor the sale of that debt to a third party, but the consequences of continued and duplicative credit reporting after assignment — and the consumer detriment that arises when responsibility for accuracy is fragmented between parties.
Context
Shop Direct (trading as Very) historically provided catalogue credit facilities to consumers. In this case, a legacy account with an outstanding balance of approximately £600 was sold to Lowell, a debt purchase and collection firm.
Following the sale, Lowell became the party pursuing recovery of the balance. However, Shop Direct continued to report the account on credit reference agency (CRA) files.
At the same time, Lowell did not report the debt to any CRA.
This created a scenario in which:
the debt existed in practice with Lowell, but
continued to exist on credit files under the original lender’s name.
That distinction matters.
What was challenged
The challenge raised with Shop Direct focused on data accuracy and duplication, not on liability for the balance itself.
Specifically:
The account had been sold and assigned.
Shop Direct no longer had an active credit relationship with the consumer.
Despite this, Shop Direct continued to report the account to CRAs.
The continued reporting created ambiguity as to:
who held responsibility for the account,
whether the data reflected an active credit relationship,
and whether the reporting fairly represented the consumer’s position.
The challenge sought confirmation that credit data would accurately reflect the post-sale reality and not present outdated or misleading information.
Consumer detriment
The detriment arising from this reporting was both practical and systemic.
From a credit-file perspective:
The account continued to appear under Shop Direct despite no ongoing relationship.
This increased the risk of perceived duplication.
It created uncertainty as to whether a single debt might later be reported again by a second party.
From a consumer perspective:
The continued presence of the entry prolonged credit file impact.
It obscured clarity around who was accountable for the data.
It undermined confidence that the credit file reflected reality rather than internal administrative convenience.
Importantly, this detriment existed regardless of payment behaviour, settlement discussions, or the consumer’s engagement with Lowell.
Shop Direct handling
A formal data-accuracy complaint was raised directly with Shop Direct.
The complaint did not request discretionary goodwill, nor did it seek to challenge the existence of the balance itself. It focused solely on whether continued reporting by Shop Direct was appropriate following assignment of the account.
Shop Direct reviewed the complaint internally.
Outcome
During January 2026, Shop Direct removed the account from both Experian and Equifax. This removal was independently confirmed by the credit reference agencies.
Shop Direct subsequently issued a final response which:
Maintained its internal position on the complaint,
But confirmed that the removal of the account from credit files was intentional and permanent, specifically to avoid confusion.
Lowell has never reported the debt to any CRA.
Following confirmation of the credit file correction, voluntary token payments to Lowell were stopped.
Why this matters
This case demonstrates that:
Credit reporting responsibility does not automatically transfer cleanly on debt sale.
Original lenders may continue reporting data that no longer reflects an active credit relationship.
Consumer detriment can arise from administrative persistence, not just default or non-payment.
It also shows that:
Targeted, evidence-based data-accuracy complaints can achieve full CRA correction.
Escalation to the Financial Ombudsman Service is not always required where inaccuracies are clear and substantiated.
Most importantly, it highlights the importance of separating debt liability from credit file accuracy — a distinction that is often blurred in practice, to the consumer’s detriment.
Current status
As of publication:
The Shop Direct (Very) entry has been fully removed from Experian and Equifax.
Lowell has never reported the account.
No further reporting is expected.
This entry reflects the position as of January 2026 and will be updated if circumstances materially change.
Key themes:
Debt sale · Credit reporting accuracy · Data responsibility · Consumer detriment · UK credit systems
