Not upheld: inaccurate credit file reporting; disputed CCJ and default entries complaint against Experian Limited

Decision detail

Summary

K complained that Experian was reporting a CCJ and default on his credit file under names he disputed, with variations of his name but matching date of birth and address. Experian requested K provide a birth certificate or evidence the CCJ belonged to someone else to investigate further, but K stated he could not provide a birth certificate. The ombudsman found Experian's request was reasonable given the matching details and that Experian cannot remove CCJ information without court or Registry Trust consent. Although other CRAs removed the information and K claimed he suffered financial loss by being forced into a higher cost mortgage, the ombudsman concluded Experian did not act unfairly and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Experian acted reasonably in requesting a birth certificate or evidence that the CCJ belonged to someone else, given the matching details on the record. Since K did not provide the requested evidence, Experian was unable to remove the information. The ombudsman noted that CRAs do not own the data they report and are not responsible for its accuracy beyond taking reasonable steps to investigate disputes. The fact that other CRAs removed the information does not mean Experian acted unfairly, as each CRA has independent systems. The ombudsman also found that Experian cannot remove CCJ information without consent from the court or Registry Trust, and K had not obtained such consent. Therefore, the ombudsman concluded Experian did not act unfairly.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website