If you’ve ever wondered how a resolved complaint can somehow become unresolved again… here’s a perfect example.
Background
I previously raised a complaint with Lloyds Bank about the way a default was being reported on my credit file.
The issue was simple in principle:
- The default date was wrong
- It was being reported inconsistently across different organisations, namely Link Financial and Lloyds Bank
This was escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), who reviewed the case and agreed that the correct default date should be:
8 March 2024
As part of the resolution, both parties involved were expected to:
- Update their reporting to reflect the correct date
- Ensure the account was reported consistently across credit files
Straightforward enough.
What Actually Happened
One side did exactly what they were supposed to do.
The other side… didn’t.
Lloyds initially continued reporting an incorrect date. That in itself was frustrating, but what’s worse is what happened next.
Instead of correcting the data to 8 March 2024, Lloyds has now updated the default to:
28 March 2024
So not only is the data still wrong, it’s now wrong in a different way.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just a technicality.
When the same account is reported with different default dates:
- It can look like multiple defaults
- It creates inconsistencies across credit files
- It undermines the accuracy of your credit history
This is exactly what the Ombudsman’s decision was supposed to prevent.
Attempts to Resolve
I’ve:
- Contacted Lloyds again
- Raised this through their complaints process
- Escalated the issue further
Each time, there has been acknowledgement… but no meaningful action.
The correction that was already agreed and confirmed has still not been implemented properly.
The Bigger Issue
This is what’s most concerning.
This isn’t a dispute about what the correct outcome should be.
That part has already been decided.
This is simply about Lloyds correctly applying a confirmed resolution.
The fact that this hasn’t been done, even after escalation, raises serious questions about:
- Internal processes
- Data accuracy
- Complaint handling
Where Things Stand
As things stand:
- The default date remains incorrect
- The reporting remains inconsistent
- The issue is still unresolved
All of this despite a clear outcome having already been reached through the Ombudsman. I will give it the required 8 weeks and if no satisfactory resolution has been reached, looks like this is boomeranging back to the Financial Ombudsman. Oh well more content for the blog eh!
