Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against West Bromwich Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that WBBS delayed responding to his data subject access request (DSAR) and failed to provide all required information, including raw credit reference submission data and reporting instruction codes. He also complained about credit file information and mortgage term letters. WBBS offered £75 compensation. The ombudsman found WBBS at fault for a three-week delay in sending the DSAR in the correct electronic format without prior notification, but not at fault for the USB delivery failure. The ombudsman rejected Mr M's arguments about material financial harm, finding he did not need the DSAR to dispute credit information and that WBBS had recorded the information correctly. The ombudsman upheld WBBS's offer of £75 as fair compensation for the procedural delay.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that WBBS failed to treat Mr M fairly by sending paper copies without prior notification and should have sent the information electronically within the statutory timeframe, resulting in a three-week delay. However, WBBS was not at fault for the USB delivery failure as it was reasonable to send by post and WBBS is not responsible for postal delivery. The ombudsman rejected Mr M's argument that he needed the DSAR to dispute credit file information or make complaints, finding no such requirement exists. Since the credit file information was recorded correctly and Mr M's separate complaint about it was not upheld, the earlier receipt of the DSAR would not have changed the outcome or his ability to obtain finance. The £75 offer was deemed fair compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the procedural delay.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website