Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against EUI Limited trading as Diamond

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S took out a fixed sum loan with Diamond to fund a car insurance policy that he subsequently cancelled. A final payment of £119.18 was due on 1 September 2025, which Mr S did not make. Diamond recorded this missed payment on Mr S's credit file and later provided incorrect information to Mr S, telling him the amount had been written off and the credit file would not be affected. Mr S complained that the missed payment marker prevented him from remortgaging his house. The ombudsman found that the missed payment was correctly recorded because the payment was contractually due and was not made, and that the subsequent misinformation did not change this fact. The complaint was not upheld, with the £150 compensation already paid deemed fair for the misinformation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that a payment of £119.18 was contractually due on 1 September 2025 and was not made by Mr S. While Diamond provided incorrect information to Mr S after the missed payment occurred, stating the amount was written off and the credit file would not be affected, this misinformation did not change the underlying fact that the payment was missed. Diamond has an obligation to report accurate information on credit files, and the missed payment was correctly recorded. The distress Mr S experienced was primarily caused by the credit marker itself rather than the misinformation, and the £150 compensation already paid fairly reflects the error in information provision.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website