Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Hippo Vehicle Solutions Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M complained to Hippo Vehicle Solutions Limited that multiple soft searches had been conducted on her credit file after she submitted a car finance application in May 2024. She alleged that Hippo had submitted her application three times to lenders, resulting in unnecessary searches. Hippo responded that as a credit broker, they only forwarded her application to their panel of lenders, who conducted the searches themselves. The ombudsman found no evidence that Hippo submitted the application multiple times or conducted any searches, and noted that Mrs M had accepted terms and conditions explaining that lenders would conduct soft searches. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Hippo, as a credit broker, did not conduct any searches themselves and only forwarded Mrs M's application to lenders for assessment. The individual lenders were responsible for any soft searches they conducted. Mrs M had accepted the terms and conditions explaining this process. There was no evidence that Hippo submitted the application multiple times or that Mrs M suffered any adverse effect from the searches. Any responsibility for explaining multiple searches by individual lenders rests with those lenders, not Hippo.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website