Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Oakbrook Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss A complained that Oakbrook Finance Limited unfairly registered a default on her credit file despite her engagement and repayment of the outstanding balance shortly afterwards. Miss A had taken out a £1,500 loan in October 2019 and experienced payment difficulties from early 2020, leading to multiple payment arrangements. After issuing a formal default notice in October 2020, Oakbrook agreed a further payment arrangement on 6 November 2020 as forbearance. When Miss A missed the final payment due 31 December 2020, Oakbrook registered a default on 5 January 2021. Miss A settled the account in full on 9 January 2021 and claimed the default was unfair, citing mental health difficulties and a delay in receiving student finance. The ombudsman found that Oakbrook acted fairly because the payment arrangement constituted a 'last chance' to avoid default, and there was no evidence that Oakbrook had been made aware of Miss A's vulnerability before the default was registered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that the payment arrangement agreed on 6 November 2020 constituted a 'last chance' for Miss A to avoid default. When Miss A failed to maintain this arrangement by missing the payment due 31 December 2020, Oakbrook acted fairly in registering the default on 5 January 2021. The ombudsman found that Oakbrook had already issued a compliant default notice in October 2020 and were not required to issue a further notice. Although Miss A claimed to have disclosed mental health difficulties and vulnerability, Oakbrook's records contained no evidence of such disclosures before the default was registered. Even if vulnerability had been disclosed, the ombudsman found that Oakbrook had already provided forbearance through the payment arrangements, and vulnerability alone would not necessarily prevent defaulting a critical account. The fact that Miss A settled the balance a few days later could not be assessed with hindsight; the fairness of Oakbrook's decision must be judged on information available at the time.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website