NCO Europe Limited · DRN-5860826

The complaint Mr H complains that NCO Europe Limited gave him an incorrect final settlement figure, meaning he paid the wrong amount when settling his account and this led to adverse information being reported to his credit file. What happened Mr H had an account with a business I’ll refer to as D for the purposes of this decision. When Mr H settled the balance on the account, he was given the wrong settlement amount by NCO, who were administering the account, and so under paid by £8. This resulted in missed payments being reported to Mr H’s credit file for a number of months. Mr H complained to NCO about this. They upheld his complaint and arranged for the balance to be removed and the credit reporting to be updated, with the adverse information being removed. However, this continued to be reported. Mr H brought his complaint to our service. NCO rereviewed his complaint and identified there had been an internal error that led to the continuing reporting of the adverse information. They said they would correct this and offered Mr H £100 to compensate for the trouble and upset they caused. Mr H didn’t accept the offer. Our investigator felt that NCO had now done everything they needed to put things right, but they should pay Mr H a total of £250 in compensation. NCO accepted the investigator’s findings Mr H didn’t, he has told our service he is looking for £25,000 in compensation. The matter has now 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. I realise that I’ve summarised this complaint in less detail than the parties and I’ve done so using my own words. I’ve concentrated on what I consider to be the key issues. The rules that govern this service allow me to do so. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy to either party, but merely to reflect my informal role in deciding what a fair and reasonable outcome is. This also means I don’t think it’s necessary to get an answer, or provide my own answer, to every question raised unless it’s relevant to the crux of the complaint. There is no dispute that NCO got things wrong here and that the errors meant that adverse information was reported to Mr H’s credit file when it shouldn’t have been. Given that my role here is just to determine if the compensation amount of £250 is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. And having considered everything I think it is, I’ll explain why. Mr H has provided various screenshots showing his credit score number has been reducing month on month, but the score itself is only visible to Mr H and not to potential lenders. It is purely an indicator of how a potential creditor may view his credit file. That being said I think

-- 1 of 2 --

it’s reasonable to assume the missed/late payment markers would have contributed to his reduction in credit score and that this would have been concerning for him. So, I accept this has caused him some worry. Mr H has said he has been declined lending and has provided some evidence to support this. However, nothing he has provided has specifically pointed to the sole reason for a declined application being because of the missed payment markers. One example that he sent most recently said he didn’t meet the lending criteria of that particular lender. It did make refence to him checking his credit file with the credit reference agencies, but this is standard practice from what I’ve seen. Lenders take into account lots of different things when assessing whether to lend, including things such as a person’s indebtedness – this is how much a person owes in total, credit that is available to them – this is credit that is available but not currently being used such as overdrafts or high credit limits on credit cards. So, without evidence that specifically points to the missed payment markers being a reason a lender has refused credit, it simply wouldn’t be fair for me to assume this was the sole reason. Mr H has said that the missed payment markers continued to show even after our investigator gave their findings on the case. He has provided screenshots of his credit score reducing to support this, but the score itself isn’t evidencing the missed payments were still being reported. He has provided one screenshot that shows an entry from June was still showing in September, but it was around this time NCO were putting things right and our investigator explained to Mr H that it can take up to six weeks for the updates to reflect on a person’s credit report. So as that was still within the six-week period I don’t think this means NCO have made a further error. Mr H has also provided an up-to-date copy of his credit file from November 2025, and I can see that the account is no longer showing. So, I’m satisfied an error that had gone before is now fully rectified. Bringing all of this together, I’m satisfied the error caused an impact on Mr H, but I feel that £250 is fair compensation in the circumstances. Putting things right NCO Europe Limited Should pay Mr H a total of £250 for the trouble and upset caused to him. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I uphold this complaint and I require NCO Europe Limited to carry out the actions as set out under the ‘Putting things right’ section of this decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Amber Mortimer Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --