Partially upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against New Wave Capital Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S personally guaranteed his limited company's £15,000 revolving credit facility with Capital on Tap. When the company defaulted in March 2025, Capital on Tap called upon Mr S to repay. In an April 2025 call, Mr S asked about the impact on his credit report and was told there would be no adverse effect. Mr S agreed to a £500 monthly arrangement but later discovered it did negatively impact his credit report. The ombudsman found Capital on Tap's statement was misleading but concluded Mr S would likely have entered the arrangement anyway due to lack of funds, as evidenced by his failure to repay even after becoming aware of the adverse impact in June 2025. The ombudsman ordered £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience but declined to require amendment of the credit file.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Capital on Tap's agent did clearly state that entering an arrangement would have no adverse effect on Mr S's credit report, which was misleading. However, the ombudsman concluded it was unlikely Mr S would have repaid the debt in full in April 2025 even with accurate information, based on: (1) Mr S's lack of available funds at that time; (2) Mr S's failure to repay the debt in June 2025 when he became aware of the adverse impact, despite his stated concern for his credit score; and (3) Mr S only repaying in November 2025. Therefore, the ombudsman declined to require amendment of the credit file but awarded compensation for the distress caused by the misleading information.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website