Financial Ombudsman Case

Dominic1234

Good evening, I recently won a case through the financial ombudsman against a credit card company for unaffordable lending. 
The debt from the credit card was sold to a debt collection agency. The financial ombudsman has ruled that all negative comments are to be removed from my credit file. 
I have 2 defaults on my file, 1 from the credit card company and 1 from the debt collection company. 
Are the debt collection company expected to remove there default also? 
Thanks
Dominic

smashinglynaive

I don't think the FOS would have ordered them to specifically remove only the negative comments as that would, in effect, be an indirect order to breach the DPA.  More likely is they were told to remove the account in its entirety.

Unless the DCA was also part of this complaint and was specifically ordered to remove the data then I'd say no, they do not.  Showing them the FOS decision and requesting the file is no longer reported may get them to stop reporting it. Other than that it'd be another FOS complaint.

sourcrates

What occasionally happens when debts are sold, is that the original companies entry stays on your credit file, showing the date of default, but as the debt was sold, a zero balance.

The new owner can add their own entry, but it must show the same default date, and the current outstanding balance.

Its still just the one default, but reported by both old and new owners.

If the FOS have ruled all negative information be removed from your file for this debt, then both entries should be removed.

The FOS decision will be provided to both concerned creditors, who should implement the changes ASAP.

smashinglynaive

sourcrates said:

What occasionally happens when debts are sold, is that the original companies entry stays on your credit file, showing the date of default, but as the debt was sold, a zero balance.

The new owner can add their own entry, but it must show the same default date, and the current outstanding balance.

Its still just the one default, but reported by both old and new owners.

If the FOS have ruled all negative information be removed from your file for this debt, then both entries should be removed.

The FOS decision will be provided to both concerned creditors, who should implement the changes ASAP.

That doesn't seem to tally with the FOS decisions I've read though.  As the DCA is not a party to the complaint, the FOS have no jurisdiction to tell them to stop reporting the account.

For example, https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/96274/DRN3712297.pdf and https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/46756/DRN1385222.pdf state that the original creditor should contact the DCA to get them to remove the adverse information.

Although I have no idea what happens if the DCA sticks two fingers up at them.  Presumably, as I said earlier it would require a separate complaint to the DCA, taken to the FOS if necessary.

sourcrates

The decision is binding on the original creditor, as stated in the example you link too.

Its up to them to make sure the debt purchasing company abide by the decision, they will either tell them to remove the default, or bring the account back in house to be dealt with, either way, all negative information will be removed.

The sale will be reversed if necessary, as though it never happened.

This is the usual practice, cases of which I have seen many of.

smashinglynaive

sourcrates said:

The decision is binding on the original creditor, as stated in the example you link too.

Its up to them to make sure the debt purchasing company abide by the decision, they will either tell them to remove the default, or bring the account back in house to be dealt with, either way, all negative information will be removed.

The sale will be reversed if necessary, as though it never happened.

This is the usual practice, cases of which I have seen many of.

The original creditor cannot force the DCA to change their reporting, and they are only obligated to buy the debt back if the FOS tells them to (for example https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/61377/DRN2087010.pdf )

They're not going to take action they're not ordered to.

I'm surprised the OP is asking this question to be honest, unless the DCA was never brought up at all.  If they were, the FOS would have undoubtedly told the creditor to do something about the DCA.

SilverJohnx

If you are UNHAPPY with FOS, please read below and sign the petition:

"There are many people who have been failed by the FOS since it has been formed. The appropriate action is to give your support as victims should not suffer in silence or fear. This only strengthens those who undermine your rights.

For public info, go on 'uk government website e-petition' on Google and search 'Government to Give More Power to SFO to Investigate All Financial Institutions'."

The above has been posted by a Truspilot user. I've just copied and pasted part of his/her review above.

Here is the link

Thrugelmir

SilverJohnx said:

If you are UNHAPPY with FOS, please read below and sign the petition:

"There are many people who have been failed by the FOS since it has been formed. The appropriate action is to give your support as victims should not suffer in silence or fear. This only strengthens those who undermine your rights.

For public info, go on 'uk government website e-petition' on Google and search 'Government to Give More Power to SFO to Investigate All Financial Institutions'."

The above has been posted by a Truspilot user. I've just copied and pasted part of his/her review above.

Here is the link

What's the petition to do with your complaint? 

eskbanker

SilverJohnx said:

If you are UNHAPPY with FOS, please read below and sign the petition:

"There are many people who have been failed by the FOS since it has been formed. The appropriate action is to give your support as victims should not suffer in silence or fear. This only strengthens those who undermine your rights.

For public info, go on 'uk government website e-petition' on Google and search 'Government to Give More Power to SFO to Investigate All Financial Institutions'."

The above has been posted by a Truspilot user. I've just copied and pasted part of his/her review above.

Here is the link

Wow!  Where to start....

That petition (currently signed by 8 out of the 100,000 needed for consideration!) potentially makes a valid point about complex multi-party cases, that may fall outside the FOS's defined remit, which is to investigate how one individual institution has dealt with a consumer complaint, but the notion that the answer is to empower the Serious Fraud Office is patently ludicrous.

The Trustpilot review concerned is similarly lacking in coherent sense, but, as ever, Trustpilot is hardly somewhere to go for objective data on organisations such as this, populated as it is by those with an axe to grind.  It claims that "Currently, 187,500+ cases have not been upheld by FOS" as if this is some sort of damning indictment, rather than a reflection of case volumes and uphold rates - it asserts that "the FOS’ website does not show how many complaints have been dismissed" but such data (plus much more) is readily accessible for analysis at https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/data-insight

Nobody is going to be claiming that the FOS is perfect, and their glacial timescales, despite some mitigating factors, are indefensible, but rambling rants on Trustpilot and silly petitions have something of a credibility gap when compared with inconvenient facts....