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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about poor service and misinformation from Wave Lending Limited regarding a reduced payment arrangement for their buy to let mortgage during an untenanted period before the property's sale. They claimed different staff members provided conflicting information about whether payments could be adjusted and the impact on their credit file. Wave had agreed to a reduced payment plan but informed them of potential credit file implications. The ombudsman found that Wave provided correct information in both the initial conversations with Mrs C and the subsequent conversation with Mr C, and that Wave advisers were not required to be experts on credit reference agencies or to propose credit file minimisation strategies. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Wave provided correct information in both sets of conversations. While Mrs C was informed of credit file implications in the first calls, and Mr C was given information about a payment structure in the second call, neither constituted incorrect advice. The ombudsman found that Wave advisers are not required to be experts on credit reference agencies or to proactively propose credit file minimisation strategies; they are only required to inform customers of potential credit file implications. The inconsistency in adviser knowledge does not constitute fault when the information provided was accurate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website