Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Frasers Group Financial Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms K complained that Frasers unfairly reported a missed payment marker to credit reference agencies after she failed to make a payment of £23.56 due on 9 December 2024. Ms K claimed confusion arose because she had returned an item on the same day and was expecting a refund, and she received conflicting information from Frasers. Although the ombudsman acknowledged Ms K's confusion and the disproportionate impact on her credit file, it determined that the payment was genuinely missed (not made until 3 January 2025) and that Frasers has a statutory duty to report accurate information to credit agencies. The complaint was not upheld and the missed payment marker was not removed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman established that lenders have a statutory duty to report accurate information to credit reference agencies. Although Ms K was confused about whether payment was due given the pending return, the terms of the account required payment by the stated date regardless of returns in progress. The payment was objectively missed (due 9 December, paid 3 January), making the reported marker accurate. Even if Frasers provided inaccurate information in a subsequent call, this would not justify removing an accurate historical record. The ombudsman acknowledged the disproportionate impact on Ms K's credit file but concluded that accuracy in reporting takes precedence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website