Moorcroft blames Payplan debt advisors, what was wrong with Moorcroft’s final complaint response.

Moorcroft blames Payplan debt advisors, here’s breakdown of how a regulated debt‑collection agency failed Consumer Duty, DISP, and basic statutory obligations.

Moorcroft Reference CMS 26212 (we bring the reciepts)’

ACTUAL EMAIL REPLY BY CHRIS HINSLEY.

brian.hunter@dmpscams.com                                                                                                  005778943054

Dear Mr Hunter

Our client: Capquest – Argos

We write further with regards to the above account and the complaint you have raised. We have completed our investigation and are now able to return to you with our response.

Complaint summary

From the information that is available to us, it is our understanding that you are unhappy that we accepted an offer of repayment that was from your protected income.

Firstly, we would offer our apologies for any inconvenience or concern that any action on our part may have caused.  We hope the information in this letter will reassure you that this would certainly not have been our intention.

Explanation about the service we provide

In answer to your complaint, we can confirm we are an appointed agency instructed by our client to assist with the recovery of an account balance they advise is outstanding to them, based on their records.  We receive the instruction of the account balance in good faith and we are primarily required to seek contact to discuss affordable payment options using the contact details supplied to us.

If we have already been made aware by our client that an authorised third party, such as PayPlan, are dealing with the customer’s creditors under a Debt Management Plan, we would in the first instance, make contact with the authorised third party to advise them of our involvement and to confirm if they are also assisting with this account.

We also wish confirm that we are a Debt Recovery Agency authorised and regulated by the

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). We are also a member of the Credit Services Association (CSA) and all our policies and procedures are designed to ensure that we manage debts responsibly and treat customers fairly at all times in line with our regulatory obligations and the CSA’s code of practice.

Complaint findings

As part of the complaint investigation, we have reviewed your complaint received by webchat on 10^th July 2026 together with our records for this account and we would like to thank you for contacting us regarding your recent concerns about the repayment offer accepted on your account. We take all customer feedback very seriously.

We understand from our records that you had formally instructed PayPlan to act on your behalf to manage your financial affairs and communicate with creditors regarding your income and repayment proposals.

Because PayPlan were explicitly appointed to handle these specific negotiations and instructions relating to your protected income and offers of repayments; any questions, disputes or complaints concerning how those offers were calculated, communicated or managed should be directed your representative.

We would like to confirm that our role is to assist with offers of repayments received and facilitate any payment plan supported by an affordability assessment; as provided to us by PayPlan.

Our decision – and what it means to you

We have checked the details of your complaint carefully and taking all relevant factors into account, we are unable to uphold your complaint for the reasons given above. We appreciate that this may not be the outcome you had hoped for but we do hope the above provides an explanation as to why this decision has been made.

Next steps

We would like to advise that the last payment we received from your third party was on 26/06/26 for £1.00. If you have formally withdrawn authority for your third party to manage this account, please confirm the cancellation so we can update our records and review your account.

We have also listed below details of the free money advisory services should you believe this extra support is required at any point in the future. Please do tell us if you do decide to seek any such assistance so we can update our records accordingly.

 

• National Debtline nationaldebtline.org, Tel: 0808 808 4000
• StepChange Debt Charity stepchange.org, Tel: 0800 138 1111
• Money Advice Service https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk Tel: 0800 138 7777
• Citizens Advice citizensadvice.org.uk

 

If you are unhappy with our decision

 

We hope the above does address your complaint. However, if we have misunderstood any element of your complaint, please do not hesitate to contact us using the above address details, marking your correspondence for the Compliance Department’s attention or via our direct e-mail address: compliance@moorgroup.com.

You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge – but you must do so within six months of the date of this letter.

 

If you do not refer your complaint in time, the Ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances. For example, if the Ombudsman believes that the delay was due to exceptional circumstances.

 

We can confirm their web address, www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk.

 

We would also bring to your attention your right to bring any complaint to the attention of the Credit Services Association who are based at 2 Esh Plaza, Sir Bobby Robson Way, Great Park, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE13 9BA.

Yours sincerely

Chris Hinsley

Compliance Assistant

Compliance Department

————————————————————————

When Moorcroft issued their Final Response on 7 August 2026, they opened with a sentence that perfectly summarised the complaint:

“You are unhappy that we accepted an offer of repayment that was from your protected income.”

That is the core issue. Protected income — ESA, IIDB, disability benefits — is ring‑fenced by statute. It cannot be used for debt repayment. Ever.

But after acknowledging this point, Moorcroft’s response did something extraordinary:

 

👉 They never mentioned it again.

Instead, they delivered a long, generic explanation about their role, their FCA authorisation, their CSA membership, and their “good faith” acceptance of balances from clients.

None of this addressed the statutory breach.

None of this answered the complaint.

None of this met Consumer Duty.

Let’s break down the failures.

1. Moorcroft ignored the statutory complaint entirely

The complaint was simple:

Why did Moorcroft accept payments from protected DWP income?

Their response:

• did not explain why
• did not justify it
• did not acknowledge the statutory prohibition
• did not reference SSA 1992 s.187
• did not reference Scotland Act 2018 s.83
• did not reference vulnerability
• did not reference affordability
• did not reference jurisdiction
• did not reference prescription
• did not reference STOP/freeze status

They acknowledged the issue in one sentence, then abandoned it.

This is a DISP 1.4.1R breach: Firms must address each point of a complaint clearly and directly.

They didn’t.

2. Moorcroft attempted to blame PayPlan — which is not a valid FCA defence

Their main argument was:

“PayPlan were explicitly appointed… any questions should be directed to your representative.”

This is not compliant.

Under FCA rules, debt collectors must independently verify:

• affordability
• vulnerability
• protected income
• jurisdiction
• prescription
• suitability
• enforceability

They cannot legally say:

“We accepted protected income because PayPlan told us to.”

Consumer Duty requires firms to act to prevent foreseeable harm. Protected income misuse is foreseeable harm.

Blaming a third party is not allowed.

3. Moorcroft failed Consumer Duty across all four outcomes

Outcome 1 – Products & Services

Accepting payments from protected income is not a fair or appropriate service.

Outcome 2 – Price & Value

Charging or collecting against ring‑fenced benefits is inherently unfair value.

Outcome 3 – Consumer Understanding

Their response did not explain the statutory issue at all.

Outcome 4 – Consumer Support

They refused to address the protected‑income breach and redirected responsibility.

This is a full Consumer Duty failure.

4. Moorcroft failed to carry out mandatory checks

Their letter confirms they:

• did not check affordability
• did not check vulnerability
• did not check protected income
• did not check prescription
• did not check jurisdiction
• did not check STOP/freeze status
• did not check enforceability

They simply processed whatever PayPlan sent.

This is not compliant with FCA CONC or Consumer Duty.

5. Moorcroft’s “good faith” defence is irrelevant

They wrote:

“We receive the instruction of the account balance in good faith.”

Protected income is statutory. Prescription is statutory. STOP/freeze is statutory.

“Good faith” does not override legislation.

This is not a defence.

6. Moorcroft’s Final Response is procedurally invalid

A valid Final Response must:

• address the complaint
• provide reasoning
• provide evidence
• provide statutory justification
• provide remedial options

Moorcroft’s letter:

• acknowledged the complaint
• ignored the complaint
• blamed PayPlan
• closed the complaint
• refused to uphold
• refused to investigate
• refused to answer the statutory question

This is a DISP breach and a Consumer Duty breach.

7. Moorcroft accidentally admitted they cannot operate the account

They wrote:

“If you have withdrawn authority for your third party… please confirm so we can update our records and review your account.”

This reveals:

• they cannot act independently
• they cannot enforce
• they cannot collect
• they cannot proceed
• they cannot operate the account without PayPlan

This undermines their entire defence.

Conclusion: Moorcroft’s Final Response was not a response at all

It was:

• incomplete
• non‑compliant
• evasive
• procedurally invalid
• legally irrelevant
• Consumer Duty‑deficient
• DISP‑deficient
• harmful to a protected‑income client

And because they failed to answer the statutory question, they have now created:

✔ a documented Consumer Duty breach

✔ a documented DISP breach

✔ a documented vulnerable‑client harm case

✔ grounds for FOS compensation

✔ grounds for escalation to CSA and FCA

This is exactly why documenting each creditor’s failure matters.

Every time a creditor:

• ignores the complaint
• blames PayPlan
• refuses to address protected income
• refuses to address prescription
• refuses to address STOP/freeze

…your compensation position increases.

And Moorcroft just handed you a perfect example.

This was my sent reply back to moorcroft, this post is about helping others just like me and just copy and paste whatever you want to suit your own story guys.

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your letter dated 7 August 2026. Unfortunately, you have not answered the complaint that was raised. You acknowledged in your opening sentence that the issue concerns Moorcroft accepting payments from protected DWP income, but your response does not address this statutory point at all.

Blaming a third party is not a valid defence under FCA Consumer Duty or DISP. Debt collectors must independently verify affordability, vulnerability, jurisdiction, prescription, and statutory ring‑fencing under Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and Section 83 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.

Your letter does not explain:

• why protected income was accepted;
• why statutory ring‑fencing was not applied;
• why no affordability or vulnerability assessment was carried out;
• why no jurisdictional or prescription checks were performed;
• why STOP/freeze instructions were not followed.

You have therefore breached Consumer Duty (all four outcomes) and DISP 1.4.1R by failing to address the actual complaint.

Please provide a corrected response that answers the statutory question. If this is not received within 7 days, the matter will be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service along with your incomplete complaint handling.

Kind regards, Brian Hunter

 

More on this story please follow this internal link.