Upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Marsh Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6206258 of 2026-06-26T00:00:00+00:00. Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Marsh Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6206258 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-26T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Marsh Finance Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Credit file / adverse marker disputes |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Pay Miss D £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by failing to explain credit file reporting or potentially failing to update it in a timely fashion. Ensure that the 2025 reporting of the finance agreement with Marsh is being reported correctly including being settled in September 2025. |
Summary
Miss D complained to Marsh Finance Limited in September 2025 that her 2025 payments and settlement of a hire purchase agreement were not being reflected in her credit file. Marsh took over the agreement in 2025 from another lender and confirmed settlement in their October 2025 response but did not address concerns about 2025 payment reporting. When the ombudsman investigated, Marsh provided no explanation or evidence regarding their credit file reporting despite multiple requests. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Marsh's failure to explain their reporting caused distress and inconvenience, and ordered them to pay £200 compensation and ensure the 2025 reporting is correct and shows the settlement in September 2025.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Marsh Finance Limited caused distress and inconvenience through their failure to explain their credit file reporting to Miss D or provide evidence to the ombudsman regarding what they were reporting and why. Despite having multiple opportunities to clarify the situation (in their October 2025 response, when contacted by the investigator in January 2026, and when responding to the ombudsman), Marsh provided no substantive explanation or evidence. The ombudsman suspected confusion arose from Marsh taking over the agreement, but Marsh's failure to address this confusion or answer Miss D's specific questions about 2025 reporting justified the complaint being upheld.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Marsh Finance Limited, all decisions | 45 | 67% |
| Credit file / adverse marker disputes, all decisions | 9,663 | 27% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website