Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Link Financial Outsourcing Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6371064 of 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00. Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Link Financial Outsourcing Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6371064 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Link Financial Outsourcing Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Credit file / adverse marker disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No additional remedy ordered. The ombudsman found that Link Financial's already-provided remedies (£750 compensation, removal of default from credit file, request to S to remove default, and write-off of £472.72 balance) were more than sufficient and exceeded what would normally be required. |
Summary
Mr M complained that Link Financial Outsourcing Limited reported a default to his credit file without holding the credit agreement, showed an incorrect account opening date, failed to mark the account as in dispute, ignored complaints, and caused mental health impacts. Link had acquired the debt from a debt purchaser and was servicing an account originally with lender S. Link responded by paying £750 compensation, removing the default, requesting S remove any default, and writing off the remaining balance. The ombudsman found that Link did not breach regulations in reporting the default or account opening date, as they reported information from S and appropriately queried discrepancies. While Link delayed passing on the credit agreement by one month, the ombudsman found this a minor failing and determined that Link's remedies already provided significantly exceeded what was warranted, resulting in the complaint not being upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Link Financial did not breach regulations in continuing to report the default despite not holding the credit agreement, as: (1) only a court can determine if an account is unenforceable; (2) there is no current system to report temporary unenforceability; (3) the reporting reflected factual information about money owed and repayment history; (4) Mr M was not disputing taking out the account itself. Regarding the account opening date, Link correctly reported what S told them and appropriately queried the discrepancy when Mr M raised it. The ombudsman found Link's delays were minor (one month in passing on the credit agreement) and that Link's already-provided remedies (£750 compensation, default removal, debt write-off) significantly exceeded what was warranted. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr M's vulnerabilities and the impact on him but found Link's responsibility for the harm to be limited.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Link Financial Outsourcing Limited, all decisions | 242 | 29% |
| Credit file / adverse marker disputes, all decisions | 9,663 | 27% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 47,449 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website