Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against American Express Services Europe Limited (AESEL)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S opened a credit card account with AESEL in October 2025 and provided bank details, believing this had set up a direct debit. When a £25 minimum payment fell due on 5 December 2025, Mrs S did not pay, having assumed the direct debit would process automatically. AESEL notified her of the missed payment on 11 December 2025, and Mrs S only requested to set up a direct debit on 14 December 2025, paying the full balance on 15 December 2025. AESEL reported the late payment to credit reference agencies and applied a late payment fee (later refunded). Mrs S complained that the late payment marker was disproportionate given it was a genuine error on her first payment and she had a good payment history. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that AESEL had correctly reported accurate information and there was no error to justify removing the marker.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged Mrs S's genuine error and good intentions but found that AESEL had correctly reported accurate information to credit reference agencies in accordance with its contractual obligations. The evidence showed that Mrs S did not have a direct debit in place when the payment was due on 5 December 2025, despite her assumption that one had been set up during account opening. The ombudsman noted that providing bank details does not constitute setting up a direct debit, and the first confirmation letter was only sent on 14 December 2025. While sympathetic to Mrs S's circumstances, the ombudsman found no error in AESEL's reporting and stated that credit file amendments can only be ordered where there is clear evidence of an error by the lender.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website