BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited · DRN-6113638

The complaint Mr W complains about adverse information reported by BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited trading as BMW Financial Services (“BMWFS”) in relation to an agreement he held with them. What happened Mr W held two separate credit agreements with BMWFS, both taken out in February 2021. One agreement was a fixed sum loan agreement (“Agreement 1”); the other was a hire purchase agreement (“Agreement 2”). Mr W said that he asked for a settlement quote from BMWFS in October 2023, which he paid, and believed both credit agreements had been settled and their respective accounts closed. Mr W said that following a mortgage application he had submitted, he was informed that there were some missed payments reported to his credit file, in relation to Agreement 1. Mr W complained to BMWFS and believed that when he requested to settle the amount he owed BMWFS, he thought that both agreements would have been linked to produce a combined settlement figure. BMWFS issued their final response in April 2025. In summary, they didn’t uphold Mr W’s complaint. They explained that on Agreement 1, there remained an outstanding balance left to pay. They said that they attempted to contact Mr W and issued a Default Notice to him in June 2024. They also explained that Mr W ought to have been aware that he held two agreements with them, as he was making two separate direct debit payments. And that Mr W only requested a settlement to Agreement 2. BMWFS thought Mr W ought to have been aware that there were still direct debit payments being made in relation to Agreement 1, until they were cancelled by Mr W later, without ensuring the agreement was finalised. Unhappy with BMWFS’s response, Mr W referred his complaint to our service. Our investigator asked for more information from BMWFS in relation to calls made between both parties in April 2024, where BMWFS attempted to contact Mr W in relation to arrears on his account. The investigator believed BMWFS could have done more at this point to clearly explain to Mr W that only Agreement 2 had been settled. And if BMWFS had done so, Mr W could have remedied the situation by also settling Agreement 1 much sooner. During our investigation, BMWFS accepted they could have done more to put things right. They offered to remove any negative reporting to Mr W’s credit file after 16 April 2024, and they also offered £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. The offer was put forward to Mr W, who declined it. So our investigator proceeded to look into things further. The investigator initially issued a view, where he thought BMWFS should pay a further £150 to Mr W for the distress and inconvenience caused by this complaint, in addition to what they had already offered. BMWFS responded and explained that they disagreed in part with the investigator’s initial outcome. They explained that by Mr W’s own admission he ignored

-- 1 of 4 --

communication attempts BMWFS had made to him. And that payments towards Agreement 1 continued for around five months after the settlement for Agreement 2 was requested, which suggested more than an oversight. The investigator considered the new information supplied and issued a second view where he concluded that BMWFS offer was fair in the circumstances. That being to remove negative information from Mr W’s credit file from after 16 April 2024 and also to pay him £100. Mr W disagreed and among other things, explained that the impact of BMWFS’s mistake meant he had struggled to obtain a fair mortgage offer. Mr W also explained that he had moved address when BMWFS had attempted to contact him by letter and believed calls from them were scam callers. Mr W also supplied an email from his mortgage broker which explained that Mr W was limited on which mortgage lenders he could apply to due to the reporting of information by BMWFS. The investigator explained that he was mindful that there was other adverse financial information recorded on Mr W’s credit file, around the same time BMWFS reported information. So, he thought it wasn’t likely the information BMWFS reported was the only consideration a potential lender would have made. As Mr W disagreed with the investigator’s findings, the complaint was passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’m upholding this complaint and I’ll explain why below. I’m aware I have summarised events and comments made by both parties very briefly, in less detail than has been provided, largely in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. In addition, if there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I haven’t. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to reach what I think is a fair outcome. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as an alternative to the courts. Mr W complains about a fixed sum loan agreement he held with BMWFS. Entering into consumer credit contracts such as this is a regulated activity, so I’m satisfied I can consider Mr W’s complaint about BMWFS. In this instance, missed payments were reported to Mr W’s credit file in relation to Agreement 1, from around February 2024. This was following Mr W cancelling a direct debit he was making towards Agreement 1, and this cancellation occurred around five months after Mr W requested a settlement quote from BMWFS. BMWFS say they attempted to contact Mr W on several occasions, by several means, to inform him of the arrears that were accruing on his account. Mr W has said that he believed communication attempts made by BMWFS may have been scam calls and that he had recently moved to a different address, and so didn’t respond or didn’t receive the letters. While I appreciate what Mr W has said here, I don’t think BMWFS has done anything wrong in this instance. Mr W hadn’t informed BMWFS of his change of address, and ultimately,

-- 2 of 4 --

BMWFS had done what was required of them in attempting to contact Mr W via multiple methods. Ultimately, I don’t think BMWFS did anything wrong in the reporting of information to Mr W’s credit file from February to April 2024. It isn’t in dispute however, that BMWFS could have done more from April 2024. I say this because, BMWFS has accepted they made a mistake during a call they held with Mr W. To put things right, BMWFS offered Mr W £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused and said they would remove adverse information from Mr W’s credit file in relation to Agreement 1, after 16 April 2024. So, what I need to consider is whether BMWFS’s offer is fair in the circumstances, or whether they need to do anything further to put things right. It isn’t in dispute between both parties that the reporting of information on Mr W’s credit file needs to be amended after 16 April 2024. So, I will focus my findings on what is in dispute and the crux of this complaint, that being the compensatory amount BMWFS has offered. Mr W has explained in detail the impact he feels BMWFS’s mistake has had on him. He has explained how it has impacted him obtaining a mortgage with a favourable lender. Mr W has also supplied an email from his mortgage broker which suggests the difficulty Mr W had was due to the information BMWFS had reported. I accept that it must have been frustrating for Mr W to notice the information that was reported to his credit file by BMWFS, especially during a mortgage application, which I appreciate is already a stressful time. But having seen a copy of Mr W’s credit file, I can see that there was another account Mr W had held, which showed that Mr W made late payments in 2024, and that there was a history of late payments made on another third-party account. Generally speaking, there are several reasons as to why an application for credit may be accepted or declined, some of which are due to affordability checks, as well as information held by credit reference agencies. Businesses also may have their own lending criteria which means one business may choose to lend when another may not. And the rate a business may choose to offer can also be impacted by a whole host of external factors. I don’t think I have seen enough to conclude that the sole reason Mr W was given less favourable mortgage offers was as a direct result of BMWFS’s mistake. And while I appreciate the email Mr W has supplied from his mortgage broker, I would need to have seen this from the mortgage lender who specifically chose to give Mr W a less favourable offer, due solely to the information BMWFS reported. However, I do appreciate how unlikely it would be for Mr W to obtain this information. And I think this further emphasises how I can’t fairly say that it was solely due to BMWFS’s mistake that Mr W couldn’t get the offer he wanted. In the circumstances, I think BMWFS’s offer of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused, alongside the removal of the reporting of adverse information on Mr W’s credit file after 16 April 2024 is fair and reasonable. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold this complaint and I instruct BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited trading as BMW Financial Services to put things right by doing the following: • Remove negative information recorded on Mr W’s agreement number ending 6041, after 16 April 2024, if this has not been actioned already.

-- 3 of 4 --

• Pay Mr W £100 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused if this has not been paid already. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 9 April 2026. Ronesh Amin Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --