Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against PREMFINA LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Miss T complained that Premfina recorded a hard credit search on her credit file without her knowledge when she took out running account credit to pay for home insurance in August 2025. She discovered the search in October 2025 and claimed it was not disclosed to her, resulting in her credit score dropping from 'good' to 'fair'. Premfina provided evidence that the application process included clear information about consultation with a credit reference agency. The ombudsman found that Miss T should have been aware a credit search would be carried out and that she likely agreed to the terms, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman was satisfied that Miss T should have been aware a credit search would be carried out, as this information was set out clearly in the application process. The ombudsman found it more likely than not that Miss T agreed to the terms, despite her claim that she did not tick any confirmation box. The ombudsman noted that applying for finance would naturally involve a credit search, making the disclosure reasonable and expected.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website