DRN-6308437

The complaint Miss W complains Nationwide Building Society acted unfairly in its reporting of her loan to Credit Reference Agencies (CRA’s). What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat it in detail here. In summary, Miss W holds a personal loan with Nationwide. In February 2024 she contacted it for help in making her repayments, after an unexpected expense. Nationwide agreed to change her monthly payment date, but in doing so made an error. This caused the account to fall into arrears. Nationwide apologised for this and paid Miss W £205 and offered to rewrite the loan, which Miss W agreed to. However, Nationwide’s systems weren’t able to do this straight away, so it continued to manually amend missed payments that were being reported to CRA’s – which had meant Miss W’s credit file was reflecting incorrectly for a prolonged period. Defaults were also applied and later removed – for which Nationwide paid Miss W a further £250 compensation. Overall, Miss W was caused inconvenience in having to contact Nationwide regularly to resolve matters. As the problem was ongoing, Miss W contacted this Service to complain. Nationwide initially told this Service the loan would be re-written around December 2024, however, it took until August 2025 to do so. An Investigator here reviewed matters and didn’t think Nationwide had acted fairly. In summary they said Nationwide’s initial error led to further problems in reporting on Miss W’s credit file. And while Nationwide had said it would resolve matters within six months, it took over a year to rewrite the loan. Our Investigator acknowledged Nationwide had already paid £455 in compensation, but considered it should also: • Reduce the loan balance by refunding interest it charged on the loan from February 2024 to date (£1,440.62); • Remove any adverse information from Miss W’s credit file Nationwide accepted our Investigator’s opinion. However explained, as a new loan had been created, following it being re-written, it would need to refund the interest to Miss W’s directly rather than reducing the balance of the loan – which Miss W also accepted. Following this, Miss W continued to communicate with this Service and Nationwide as although it had made payment of £1,440.62 to her – it hadn’t updated her credit file as agreed. Nationwide accepted it had made an error in this regard and confirmed Miss W’s credit file was corrected around March 2026. To resolve matters, Miss W considered Nationwide should write off the loan in its entirety

-- 1 of 4 --

along with compensation of £8,000. In summary saying the situation had caused significant distress and inconvenience in having to resolve matters. Incorrect negative markers had routinely been placed on her credit file, all as a result of Nationwide’s errors. Miss W also explained she’d been unable to obtain a mortgage during this time, which had caused further stress and anxiety and impacted her personal circumstances. In response, Nationwide offered a further £250, but this wasn’t accepted by Miss W. Our Investigator reviewed everything again, to consider whether the further offer of £250 was fair. In doing so they asked Miss W for evidence she’d been declined for a mortgage. Miss W confirmed she had not applied, as she’d been advised she may be declined, given the adverse information on her credit file. Overall, our Investigator agreed Nationwide had acted unfairly and had delayed matters by a further three months. They also didn’t think £250 was a fair resolution to this complaint and considered Nationwide should pay a further £450 in total. Miss W didn’t agree and considered Nationwide should also refund the interest paid on the loan from August 2025 to present. Saying Nationwide had failed to comply with our recommendation and provided false information before taking action. Nationwide also didn’t agree to pay £450 and considered £250 was sufficient. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint has been 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. In doing so, I’ve taken into account the relevant industry rules and guidance, and what would be considered as good industry practice. I want to start by saying, I’m very sorry to hear about the impact this issue has had on Miss W over the years. I’ve not repeated everything Miss W has told us here, as our decisions are published, but I’d like to thank Miss W for sharing this information with us. I’d also like to reassure her I’ve taken this all into consideration when coming to my decision. I should also explain I’ve read and taken into account of all the information provided by both parties, in reaching my decision. If I’ve not reflected something that’s been said it’s not because I didn’t see it, it’s because I didn’t deem it relevant to the crux of the complaint. This also means I don’t think it’s necessary to get an answer, or provide my own answer, to every question raised unless I think it’s relevant to the crux of the complaint. I haven’t set out the service failings of Nationwide, as all parties accept that the service Miss W received should have been better. It also isn’t the role of this service to fine or punish a financial business. Rather, when something has gone wrong, as is the case here, I must determine what a fair outcome is. All parties are also now in agreement that Nationwide has updated Miss W’s credit file and it’s reflecting as it should be. This appears to have happened around March 2026. As such, what’s left for me to consider in this decision is the impact this matter has had on Miss W. And therefore, what a fair level of compensation would be. This issue began in February 2024 and took until around March 2026 to be resolved – so

-- 2 of 4 --

Miss W’s credit file has been reflecting incorrectly for a little over two years. I can understand this would have been particularly distressing, especially given this happened through no fault of her own, so it’s right Miss W is compensated for that. When considering this, I must also take into account, the amount Miss W has already been paid by Nationwide as a result of these failings. In total it’s paid her around £1,895 to apologise for the impact the errors caused, up to the point it agreed to amend her credit file. This seems reasonable. Following this, Nationwide told this Service it had had requested the correction of Miss W’s credit file around September 2025. However, it later became apparent it had made an error when completing this. As such, Miss W’s credit file wasn’t corrected until around March 2026. I understand Miss W considers Nationwide provided false information and thinks it did so deliberately, but I’m not persuaded by this. It’s disappointing Nationwide made a further error when attempting to update Miss W’s credit file, but I haven’t seen it did so deliberately. So I’ve also taken this into account when considering what a fair resolution would be in this case. As well as the inconvenience this matter has understandably caused Miss W, she’s also said she’s been impacted financially. She’s said, amongst other things, this includes obtaining a mortgage. However, Miss W has confirmed she didn’t apply for a mortgage – because she was advised not to do so, given the information Nationwide was reporting. This means, it’s simply not possible to say whether Miss W would or wouldn’t have been declined, had she applied. In any case, in order to uphold this aspect of Miss W’s complaint, I’d need to be satisfied the incorrect information reported by Nationwide was the sole reason Miss W had been unable to obtain a mortgage. And without this information that also means I can’t hold Nationwide responsible for any personal impact caused as a result of not obtaining a mortgage. Miss W considers fair compensation in this case would be for Nationwide to write off her outstanding loan and pay £8,000 in compensation – but I don’t agree. Miss W has had benefit of the funds she’s borrowed from Nationwide, so even though Nationwide has made some errors, it’s right these are repaid. In addition, while Nationwide agreed to refund a period of interest payments, it doesn’t mean a fair outcome is for it to continue doing so. I say this as a condition of Nationwide agreeing to lend Miss W the funds is that it would charge interest while borrowing the money. In contrast, Nationwide offered Miss W a further £250, which I also don’t consider to be a fair resolution to this complaint. That’s because, while on its own the delay was three months, this was compounded by the fact Miss W had already been impacted by Nationwide’s errors for a significant period prior to this. And she considered the matter had been resolved, which wasn’t the case. As such, after paying £1,895 to resolve matters, an amount also accepted by Miss W at the time, Nationwide’s errors caused a further delay of around three months. As I’ve explained above this caused Miss W inconvenience in having to chase Nationwide and contact this Service. It would have also been distressing, given she considered the matter was resolved – when this wasn’t the case. However, taking everything into consideration I do think a further payment of £450 fairly resolves matters in this case. While a monetary payment doesn’t take away from Miss W’s experience; the challenges she’s faced and the upset caused, I think this amount fairly recognises the errors made by Nationwide and is in line with how this Service awards compensation.

-- 3 of 4 --

Conclusion In conclusion, I’m sorry to hear of the impact Nationwide’s actions have had on Miss W. It’s clearly been a difficult period and its errors and subsequent delays caused by Nationwide have exacerbated that. While I appreciate this will come as a disappointment to Miss W, I must take into account Nationwide has already paid £1,895 and as such, I think a further £450 is a fair resolution in this case. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold his complaint and require Nationwide Building Society to pay Miss W £450. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss W to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Victoria Cheyne Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --