Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Capital One (Europe) plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs B complained that Capital One failed to respond to her request to amend her credit file, which she attributed to a serious health crisis. Capital One responded requesting medical evidence covering the period when arrears increased and a default was recorded. Mrs B provided medical evidence to the Financial Ombudsman Service but not directly to Capital One. The ombudsman found Capital One acted fairly in requesting appropriate evidence before making a decision and did not uphold the complaint, noting that if Mrs B provides the requested evidence and is unhappy with Capital One's response, this would constitute a separate complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Capital One's initial contact from Mrs B was a request rather than a formal complaint, so response time rules did not apply. The ombudsman found it reasonable for Capital One to request medical evidence covering the period when arrears increased and a default was recorded, as they have reporting obligations and need clear justification to amend credit file records. Since Capital One had not received appropriate medical evidence at the time of the decision, it was fair for them to wait before deciding whether to amend the credit file.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website