Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Salary Finance Loans Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E complained that Salary Finance unfairly recorded adverse information on his credit file following a repayment arrangement. After missing a December 2024 payment, Mr E entered a temporary £100 per month arrangement (February-April 2025) in place of his £218.87 contractual payment, recorded as 'arrangement to pay'. When this arrangement ended and Mr E resumed full contractual payments plus an additional £31.13 to clear arrears, his account was reclassified to a 'Contractual Monthly Payment Plus arrears plan' and arrears continued to be reported on his credit file. Mr E argued this was unfair as he had adhered to the arrangements. The ombudsman found that Mr E's account was genuinely approximately two payments in arrears at the end of the temporary arrangement due to the December missed payment and reduced payments, and Salary Finance was obligated to report this accurate information to credit reference agencies. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Salary Finance had an obligation to report accurate information to credit reference agencies in accordance with contractual payment terms. Since Mr E's account was genuinely in arrears (approximately two payments) at the point the temporary arrangement ended in May 2025, due to the December 2024 missed payment and reduced payments during the arrangement period, it was correct for Salary Finance to report this arrears status. The ombudsman found no evidence that further new arrears were being recorded, only that existing arrears continued to be reported as they had not yet been cleared. The ombudsman was not persuaded by Mr E's claim that the December payment had been agreed to be deferred, finding insufficient evidence despite call recordings provided. The ombudsman rejected the investigator's recommendation for compensation, finding that clearer communication would not have changed the outcome since Mr E was genuinely in arrears and could only afford to clear them gradually.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website