Not upheld: incorrect information on credit file / data accuracy complaint against Experian Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6291971 of 2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00. incorrect information on credit file / data accuracy complaint against Experian Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6291971 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Experian Limited |
| Product | credit file / credit reporting |
| Claim type | incorrect information on credit file / data accuracy |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Miss J complained that Experian incorrectly added another person's information to her credit file, resulting in debt collection contact, credit score decline, and stress. The incorrect information was originally supplied by lender C in May 2018. Experian initially disputed the information with C, who did not agree to removal, but later removed it as an exception following a further review. The ombudsman found Experian had not acted wrongly, as responsibility for data accuracy lies with the data provider, and Experian's standard dispute procedure was appropriate. Although Experian could have intervened earlier, they were not obligated to do so without the provider's agreement.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman reasoned that responsibility for providing accurate data lies with the data provider (C), not Experian. Experian's standard practice of disputing incorrect information with the data provider was appropriate and reasonable. Although Experian could have removed the data earlier through a discretionary review, they were not obligated to do so without the data provider's agreement. The system update that increased the impact of the incorrect information was not Experian's fault because C was responsible for reporting the address link. The three-day delay in adding a Notice of Correction was not unreasonable in context.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Experian Limited, all decisions | 381 | 17% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website