Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against West Bromwich Building Society
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6222247 of 2026-07-02T00:00:00+00:00. Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against West Bromwich Building Society. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6222247 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-07-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | West Bromwich Building Society |
| Product | Mortgage |
| Claim type | Credit file / adverse marker disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman advised Mr M that he may apply a notice of correction to his credit file to explain his circumstances. |
Summary
Mr M complained that WBBS inaccurately recorded his two buy-to-let mortgages as being in arrears on his credit file when he claimed an arrangement to pay was in place, preventing him from refinancing. WBBS had granted a nil-payment concession for three months following a financial review but did not formally agree to Mr M's additional £100 monthly payments and recorded the arrears level throughout. The ombudsman found that an arrangement requires formal lender agreement to a temporary change in terms, not merely borrower engagement or payment attempts, and that WBBS reasonably required updated income and expenditure information before agreeing to an arrangement. The ombudsman concluded the information recorded was accurate and consistent with industry practice, and that WBBS acted fairly by recording both the arrears level and the formal arrangements it had agreed to.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the definition that an arrangement requires formal lender agreement to a temporary change in borrowing terms, not merely borrower engagement, payment attempts, or dispute. While WBBS granted a nil-payment concession, it was entitled to record the arrears level during that period as long as the arrangement was also recorded, which it was. The ombudsman found WBBS reasonably required updated income and expenditure information before formally agreeing to an arrangement and that Mr M's additional £100 payments were not formally agreed. The ombudsman considered it consistent with good industry practice for WBBS to record arrears when no formal arrangement had been agreed, as this maintains consistency across the credit reporting system. The ombudsman rejected the argument that engagement, payments made, or attempts to regularise should constitute an arrangement without formal lender agreement.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| West Bromwich Building Society, all decisions | 222 | 28% |
| Credit file / adverse marker disputes, all decisions | 9,707 | 27% |
| Mortgage, all decisions | 24,714 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website