Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Tesco Bank

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C complained about a default recorded on her credit file by Tesco Bank following arrears on a loan opened in February 2025. The loan had missed payments from September to November 2025, and Miss C made contact in January 2026 requesting settlement figures while the account was in arrears. A Default Notice was issued on 5 February 2026 to the address Miss C provided during application (street number only, without flat number), and a Termination Letter followed on 11 March 2026. Miss C claimed she did not receive these notices and only learned of the default from a credit reference agency alert. The ombudsman found that Tesco Bank reasonably used the address Miss C provided, had previously successfully communicated with her at that address, and that the default accurately reflected the account's arrears status. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Tesco Bank used the address format that Miss C herself provided during the application process (street number only, without flat number), and that this was reasonable. The ombudsman noted that Tesco Bank had previously successfully communicated with Miss C by post at this address. The ombudsman was satisfied that the Default Notice was properly issued on 5 February 2026 and that businesses are required to send Default Notices by appropriate methods. The ombudsman also noted that while Miss C claimed she would have repaid the arrears if she had received the notice, the account had been in arrears for approximately six months (four months by the point of default), suggesting Miss C was aware of the account status through previous contact with Tesco Bank and statements issued. The ombudsman concluded that the default accurately reflected the payment arrears and that Tesco Bank was required to report accurate information to credit reference agencies.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website