Incorrect Credit Rating

[Deleted User]

Board guides can "merge" duplicate threads, no need to waste the time of the Forum Team.

Simply private message to
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/member.php?u=1766725

[Deleted User]

Willsie01 wrote: »

I believe I can easily demonstrate inconvenience and a little distress.
I have also suffered a financial loss but accept that is not so easy to prove.

Indeed, how do you propose to show that £400 is less than your actual "losses" when you don't actually have any (tangible) losses?

Courts will almost without exception follow the Ombudsman ruling so, unless you can provide very compelling (and verifiable) evidence that your "losses" exceed the proposed £400, I'd just accept the goodwill gesture and concentrate on having the markers removed from your credit file.

Willsie01 wrote: »

the number of (frivolous) posts have a bearing on adding to the overhead of the forum.

Since site traffic actually helps the profitability of the site, your duplicate thread (and responses) have inadvertently done the opposite of what you suggest.

cono1717

The company can only pass new information to the Ombudsman say if they found a chat that said "OK fine I don't want to cancel" then it could change the decision. Once the ombudsman decision is made the company is bound by it. If they don't stick to it Ombudsman drop them which goes against the ofcom code of conduct which states you need to have an ADR.

Ombudsman Services decision (OSD)
When a complaint is accepted for resolution we will assess the information we have and decide the most appropriate way to proceed.
We always try to achieve a resolution to a complaint which is acceptable to both sides. We appreciate that this is not always possible, so we will consider all of the information available to us and we will make a decision.
We will contact both you and the company to explain our decision and the reasons why we have arrived at it. If either party considers there is an error in fact or has new information which was not previously available, this may be given to us for consideration. We will check to see if this affects the outcome before the ombudsman services decision is finalised.
We will contact you and the company again to explain if there has been any change to the decision, or if it remains the same.

steampowered

Have you provided the Ombudsman with proof of any financial loss you have suffered? If you can provide this proof, that should be reflected in the award.

Unfortunately awards made by the Ombudsman can sometimes be arbitrary and derisory. It is a very hit-and-miss service.

If you wish to push this forward, you don't have to accept the Ombudsman's decision and could look at issuing a small claim against EE for damage to your credit rating. The Supreme Court recently upheld an award of £8,000 against a bank for precisely that, even without proof of actual financial loss, and that is a legally binding precedent - see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2012-0135.html.

Issuing a letter before action against EE may encourage EE to settle on better terms, although it would be more time and effort, and you would still be expected to try and provide proof of any financial loss you want to claim for.

Getting worse terms on your mortgage because of the damage done to your credit rating is financial loss. If you can get a letter from your financial advisor saying what kind of rate you could expect to get without the credit rating, that would help.

[Deleted User]

steampowered wrote: »

Unfortunately awards made by the Ombudsman can sometimes be arbitrary and derisory. It is a very hit-and-miss service.

Since such redress is deliberately defined to avoid accusations against individual FOS staff members, I don't see where you are getting the "arbitrary and derisory" description from.

steampowered wrote: »

Getting worse terms on your mortgage because of the damage done to your credit rating is financial loss.

It's not a financial loss at all unless the OP actually accepted those terms and is paying them.

DCFC79

Your credit rating is only seen by you and you only.

steampowered

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Since such redress is deliberately defined to avoid accusations against individual FOS staff members, I don't see where you are getting the "arbitrary and derisory" description from.

Simply my personal experience from having dealt with a fair number of Ombudsman cases over the years (both on the consumer side and on the bank side). The service is just poorly funded and I think it struggles to deal with serious or complicated cases. I've seen a lot of fairly random awards (e.g. derisory awards for consumers who have been treated horrendously in some cases; and fairly high amounts awarded against banks who don't appear to have done anything wrong in others).

Most cases submitted to the FOS are dealt with by junior people with the title 'adjudicators' and my personal experience is that, while some adjudicators are excellent, many of them fail to look at evidence properly and make some very strange decisions (perhaps not surprising when you look at the adjudicator payscales - £22k for a job in financial services in central London!). You can get decisions escalated to more senior people who have the title of 'Ombudsman', who usually have some real world experience of working in law or in finance, and they seem to be a lot more sensible, but I get the sense that the Ombudsman are overworked and really struggle to devote attention to cases which are serious or complicated.

Where necessary, you'll usually get a higher level of expertise and a lot more attention by issuing a small court claim and having your case heard by a county court.

It's not a financial loss at all unless the OP actually accepted those terms and is paying them.

You can claim for financial loss which will be incurred in the future. For example, if the Op could have previously found a mortgage at 1% but in future will need to take out a mortgage for 2%, you could make a claim for the 1% difference. More difficult to prove though.

Chickabiddybex

I've merged the two duplicate threads together... keep in mind that some of the posts before this one are not replying to the ones directly above them!

[Deleted User]

steampowered wrote: »

Most cases submitted to the FOS are dealt with by junior people with the title 'adjudicators' and my personal experience is that, while some adjudicators are excellent, many of them fail to look at evidence properly

I'm afraid I disagree with you entirely. Are you really casting aspersions on their professionalism based solely on their pay scales???