Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Wealthify Limited

Decision detail

Summary

X complained that Wealthify Limited inappropriately asked about a County Court Judgement (CCJ) from May 2017 when X applied for an account in January 2023. X claimed the CCJ had been recorded in error and removed by the Court, and was unhappy with the language used in Wealthify's final response letter. The ombudsman found that Wealthify acted reasonably in asking about the CCJ as it appeared on their credit checks from credit reference agencies and it is standard practice to inquire about credit history. The ombudsman noted that the discrepancy between the CCJ appearing in Wealthify's checks and not appearing on X's 2021 credit report requires clarification from the credit reference agency. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

CCJs are matters of public record and Wealthify received the CCJ information from credit reference agencies during standard application checks. It was reasonable for Wealthify to ask X about their credit history when they had made an application. The discrepancy between the CCJ appearing in Wealthify's checks but not on X's 2021 credit report could have various explanations that X would need to clarify with the credit reference agency. The language used in Wealthify's final response letter did not imply impropriety or discourtesy.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website