Lottie complained that the reporting was incorrect. She said she had not been clearly told when the hardship arrangement ended, did not receive important correspondence, and was actively in touch with the bank about her financial position. She also said the reporting affected her employment because her job required a security clearance. She sought compensation to recognise this fact.

The bank later reimbursed the repayment account overdraft and wrote off the remaining joint loan balance. However, Lottie and the bank disagreed about whether the adverse credit reporting was accurate and fair.

Our investigation

The bank’s records showed the bank gave conflicting information to Lottie about when the hardship arrangement would end. It also told Lottie it would contact her before the arrangement ended, but we found no evidence this happened. Important letters about the ending of the arrangement were sent to an outdated address, even though the bank had updated Lottie’s address details. We found the bank did not communicate clearly and effectively about the ending of the hardship arrangement.

The bank’s records also showed Lottie responded promptly when the bank contacted her via email. Had the bank contacted Lottie before the hardship arrangement ended, she would likely have sought further assistance and taken steps to avoid adverse reporting. We considered it likely the bank would have extended the hardship arrangement.

A bank’s credit reporting must be accurate and not misleading. The bank’s records showed a hardship flag remained on the loan until October 2025. We found it was not accurate to report missed payments while the hardship arrangement was in place, or when she reasonably believed it remained in place. We could not see any proper basis for the bank’s reporting of both the joint loan and the repayment account as overdue. This appeared to be double-reporting. The bank’s subsequent decision to clear the overdue balance on the repayment account also implied Lottie was not liable for the arrears. We considered it was therefore inaccurate to have reported these arrears as missed payments. In short, the bank’s reporting between September 2025 and February 2026 was inaccurate and misleading.

We also found the bank did not effectively respond to Lottie’s concerns about the credit reporting, despite her repeatedly raising those concerns, along with concerns about the bank’s communications. However, the bank had already forgiven the joint personal loan in full and credited the repayment account, so further compensation was unwarranted.

We recommended the bank amend its credit reporting to reflect the existence of a hardship arrangement between September 2025 and February 2026.

Outcome

The bank and Lottie agreed with our recommendation, and the bank amended its credit reporting.