complaint
Mr and Mrs G complain that Blemain Finance Limited (Blemain) recorded inaccurate
information about them with a credit reference agency. They say that this affected their credit
rating and that Blemain failed to address their concerns adequately when they complained.
background
In November 2012 Mr and Mrs G discovered that there were inaccurate records with a credit
reference agency relating to their secured loan with Blemain. They believed that those
inaccuracies had led another bank to reject their application for a loan.
They complained to Blemain about this in November 2012. Blemain says that it contacted
the credit reference agency at that time to request amendments to their records in response
to Mr and Mrs G’s complaint.
In February 2013, Mr and Mrs G complained again to Blemain about their records with the
credit reference agency as they had discovered that the records hadn’t been amended.
Blemain asked Mr and Mrs G to provide a copy of their credit reports so that it could check
whether or not the inaccuracies had been corrected. Blemain offered £50 for the distress
and inconvenience caused by the inaccurate recording but maintained that the matter had
been addressed in November 2012. Mr and Mrs G refused to provide their credit reports and
instead made a complaint to this service.
Sometime in or around April 2013, it appears that the records with the credit reference
agency were amended. The adjudicator was of the view that this complaint should be
upheld. He thought that Blemain should pay Mr and Mrs G £200 for the distress and
inconvenience caused by its errors and he highlighted the delay in amending the records as
a basis for increasing the recommended compensation. In addition, he said that Blemain
should refund the costs to Mr and Mrs G of obtaining their credit reports from November
2012 until May 2013 which they had done in order to check that the reports had been
corrected. Blemain disagreed and asked for the complaint to be reviewed by an
ombudsman.
my findings
I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what is fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
It is not a matter of dispute that Blemain had allowed incorrect records to appear on Mr and
Mrs G’s credit reports. It is clear from the correspondence relating to this complaint that this
caused Mr and Mrs G a considerable degree of distress and inconvenience.
While the incorrect records did cause distress to Mr and Mrs G, I haven’t seen any evidence that the
inaccurate records actually led to the refusal of credit as the bank that Mr and Mrs G
approached in autumn 2012 based its assessment on records held by different credit
reference agencies not used by Blemain.
Although it appears from Blemain’s correspondence with the credit reference agency that an
attempt was made to correct the mistake in November 2012, I can’t see any reason why
Blemain didn’t follow up with the credit reference agency when Mr and Mrs G contacted
them in February 2013 to find out what had happened. The correspondence provided
indicates that Blemain only double checked with the credit reference agency in July 2013
once the complaint was already with this service. This added to the delay and I agree with
the adjudicator’s assessment that, as the records were corrected without Mr and Mrs G
providing their credit files, there was no real reason for Blemain to insist on having copies of
the files before investigating further. I therefore agree that Blemain’s response to the
complaint added to the distress and inconvenience.
Having found out that their credit reports were inaccurate, I think that it was reasonable for
Mr and Mrs G to get monthly reports until they were satisfied that their files had been
corrected. I believe that it is fair and reasonable that Blemain should cover the costs of those
reports.
my final decision
It is my final decision that this complaint is upheld.
Susie Alegre
ombudsman
Mr and Mrs G complain that Blemain Finance Limited (Blemain) recorded inaccurate
information about them with a credit reference agency. They say that this affected their credit
rating and that Blemain failed to address their concerns adequately when they complained.
background
In November 2012 Mr and Mrs G discovered that there were inaccurate records with a credit
reference agency relating to their secured loan with Blemain. They believed that those
inaccuracies had led another bank to reject their application for a loan.
They complained to Blemain about this in November 2012. Blemain says that it contacted
the credit reference agency at that time to request amendments to their records in response
to Mr and Mrs G’s complaint.
In February 2013, Mr and Mrs G complained again to Blemain about their records with the
credit reference agency as they had discovered that the records hadn’t been amended.
Blemain asked Mr and Mrs G to provide a copy of their credit reports so that it could check
whether or not the inaccuracies had been corrected. Blemain offered £50 for the distress
and inconvenience caused by the inaccurate recording but maintained that the matter had
been addressed in November 2012. Mr and Mrs G refused to provide their credit reports and
instead made a complaint to this service.
Sometime in or around April 2013, it appears that the records with the credit reference
agency were amended. The adjudicator was of the view that this complaint should be
upheld. He thought that Blemain should pay Mr and Mrs G £200 for the distress and
inconvenience caused by its errors and he highlighted the delay in amending the records as
a basis for increasing the recommended compensation. In addition, he said that Blemain
should refund the costs to Mr and Mrs G of obtaining their credit reports from November
2012 until May 2013 which they had done in order to check that the reports had been
corrected. Blemain disagreed and asked for the complaint to be reviewed by an
ombudsman.
my findings
I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what is fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
It is not a matter of dispute that Blemain had allowed incorrect records to appear on Mr and
Mrs G’s credit reports. It is clear from the correspondence relating to this complaint that this
caused Mr and Mrs G a considerable degree of distress and inconvenience.
While the incorrect records did cause distress to Mr and Mrs G, I haven’t seen any evidence that the
inaccurate records actually led to the refusal of credit as the bank that Mr and Mrs G
approached in autumn 2012 based its assessment on records held by different credit
reference agencies not used by Blemain.
Although it appears from Blemain’s correspondence with the credit reference agency that an
attempt was made to correct the mistake in November 2012, I can’t see any reason why
Blemain didn’t follow up with the credit reference agency when Mr and Mrs G contacted
them in February 2013 to find out what had happened. The correspondence provided
indicates that Blemain only double checked with the credit reference agency in July 2013
once the complaint was already with this service. This added to the delay and I agree with
the adjudicator’s assessment that, as the records were corrected without Mr and Mrs G
providing their credit files, there was no real reason for Blemain to insist on having copies of
the files before investigating further. I therefore agree that Blemain’s response to the
complaint added to the distress and inconvenience.
Having found out that their credit reports were inaccurate, I think that it was reasonable for
Mr and Mrs G to get monthly reports until they were satisfied that their files had been
corrected. I believe that it is fair and reasonable that Blemain should cover the costs of those
reports.
my final decision
It is my final decision that this complaint is upheld.
- Blemain Finance Limited should pay Mr and Mrs G £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its error.
- Blemain Finance Limited should pay Mr and Mrs G £94.25 as compensation for the cost of credit reports they obtained between December 2012 and May 2013 in connection with this complaint.
Susie Alegre
ombudsman
Comment