Not upheld: credit file reporting accuracy and default removal complaint against Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Ms P complained that her Halifax loan remained on her credit file longer than it should have after she entered into a debt relief order (DRO) in September 2021. She believed Halifax should have been notified of the DRO and removed the loan from her credit file accordingly. The ombudsman found no evidence that Halifax received notification of the DRO, as the insolvency practitioner could not provide a copy of the notification email. Furthermore, the ombudsman determined that even if Halifax had received notice, government guidance establishes that debts listed in a DRO remain on credit files for six years and do not show as paid/settled during this period. Since the default occurred in October 2019, it was correctly due to remain until October 2025. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no sufficient evidence that Halifax received notice of the DRO, as no copy of the notification email was provided and Halifax's records contained no indication of receipt. Additionally, even if Halifax had received notice, government guidance on DROs establishes that debts listed in a DRO remain on credit files for six years and do not show as paid/settled during this period. Since the default occurred in October 2019, it was due to remain on the credit file until October 2025, which aligns with the six-year rule. Ms P did not contact Halifax until 2025 when the DRO was still impacting her credit file, making it unclear that any error would have had significant additional impact.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website