Evolution Lending Limited · DRN-6229874

The complaint Mr M has complained about the information Evolution Lending Limited has reported to the credit reference agencies about his secured (second charge) loan since June 2023. What happened Mr M took out this secured loan in November 2019. He borrowed £35,000 (plus £4,199 fees) on a repayment basis over a five-year term. Mr M first went into arrears in 2021 with him paying £500 a month against his contractual monthly payment of around £930 a month. From January 2022 Mr M reverted to making his full contractual monthly payments, and in June 2022 Evolution rewrote his account which meant the arrears that were outstanding were no longer reported to the credit reference agencies after that point. In June 2023 Mr M’s direct debit was returned as unpaid and the payment wasn’t made up. In July 2023 Mr M made his full monthly payment, he paid nothing in August and September 2023, and then between October 2023 and January 2024 Mr S paid £500 a month (against a contractual monthly payment of around £985). Nothing was paid in February or March 2024, £500 was paid in April 2024, and then nothing further was paid until June 2025 when Mr M made a payment of around £1,080. No further payments were made after then (up until the last report I hold on file, which was December 2025). The period this complaint relates to runs from June 2023, and the contact notes provided by Evolution shows Mr M was in contact with it at that time. Mr M complained to Evolution in June 2025. He said he’d been transparent throughout, and demonstrated a willingness to pay, but despite that Evolution had reported missed payments to the credit reference agencies rather than an arrangement to pay. Evolution responded on 5 August 2025. It said it agreed: • A nil-payment arrangement for July 2023. • A reduced payment arrangement of £500 for October 2023. • A nil-payment arrangement for June 2024. • A higher payment arrangement of around £1,080 for June 2025. It said that during the periods where there was no arrangement on the account it could see Mr M had largely remained engaged with it, however there were periods of delay on the part of Mr M. It said, despite this, it thought it could have taken a more proactive approach, and it would request Mr M’s credit file be updated to reflect the account was in an arrangement for the entire period in question. However, it said the most recent arrangement had ended on 30 June 2025 so an arrangement won’t be reported from that date. Mr M wasn’t happy with that. He said he had incurred a financial loss of around £40,000 due to being unable to refinance properties and a lost property purchase. Our investigator

-- 1 of 4 --

thought Evolution had made a more than fair offer, so Mr M asked for his complaint to be reviewed by an ombudsman. 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’ve a great deal of sympathy for the position Mr M is in. It’s clear he’s gone through – and is still going through - some very difficult times in recent years. I’ve not gone into any detail about that in this decision to protect Mr M’s privacy once the decision is published. But I’d seek to reassure him that I’ve read and taken into account everything I’ve seen about that. When considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of this case, I’m required by DISP 3.6.4R of the FCA Handbook to take into account the relevant law, regulations, and good industry practice, when reaching my decision. Mr M has clearly done a lot of research into what he feels are relevant laws and legislation to support his complaint. Based on this he feels very strongly that Evolution needs to do more to resolve this complaint. I’ve given careful consideration to all the submissions made by both parties, but I won’t address each and every point that has been raised. I’ll focus on the matters that I consider most relevant to how I’ve reached a fair outcome. Having done all that, I don’t think this complaint should be upheld beyond the offer already made by Evolution. I realise this will be disappointing for Mr M, but I hope the reasons I have set out below will help him to understand why I have come to this conclusion. To start, I should make it clear that I’ll only be considering what happened up to when the final response letter was issued on 5 August 2025. Anything that has happened since then, or that didn’t form part of that complaint, aren’t something I have the power to consider here. For example, I understand Mr M is unhappy with Evolution’s answer to his subject access request but as that wasn’t part of the original complaint it isn’t something I’m able to consider. If Mr M remains unhappy with Evolution’s response he will need to follow the complaint process for that, which I understand would involve a complaint to Evolution, and then a referral to the Information Commissioner's Office 1 if he remains unhappy. Evolution has sent us all the information we’ve asked for, so I’m satisfied I can fairly decide this complaint. Evolution has provided evidence to show it notified the three credit reference agencies that it reports to – TransUnion, Equifax and Experian – of the update on the same date, that is 7 August 2025. Mr M has provided screenshots of his credit file from TransUnion and Experian, and those show the TransUnion report was updated, with the account showing as in an arrangement from July 2023 until July 2025. So it is clear from this that Evolution did send the updated information through, otherwise the TransUnion report wouldn’t have been updated. Unfortunately it seems the Experian report hasn’t been updated to show as in an arrangement for that period, but that doesn’t mean Evolution did anything wrong. It has provided to this service copies of the updates it sent to all three credit reference agencies on the same day, so I’m satisfied it made the request to update the reporting. 1 https://ico.org.uk/

-- 2 of 4 --

I don’t know why Mr M’s Experian report is still showing differently but I don’t need to know that to fairly decide this complaint as, based on the evidence provided, it seems Evolution sent the update to Experian at the same time as it sent it to TransUnion. To try to resolve this I suggest both parties take action; Evolution should send the update request to Experian again, and Mr M should contact Experian to also query it (as that should prompt Experian to contact Evolution). However, even if the Experian report had been updated at the same time as the others, I don’t think it would have made a difference to the overall position Mr M is in. That’s because, even though the Experian report would have contained an additional line to say it was in an arrangement to pay, the underlying report for the account would still have shown the status of the arrears, that is the number of months of arrears Mr M was in. That’s because that’s how Experian reports accounts that are in arrears at the same time as an arrangement to pay. The arrangement Mr M entered into would show on his credit file as would his arrears. He missed payments (or didn’t make his full payments) by arrangement with Evolution. It’s right that his credit file shows that – it wouldn’t be correct for it to show that he made payments in full and on time for those months when he didn’t; but equally it wouldn’t be correct to show that he’d just missed them without discussion with the lender. So his credit file would show he was in arrears with an arrangement to pay. All that said, having reviewed the account history Mr M wasn’t in an arrangement to pay for that full two year period, so Evolution has already gone far beyond what I would have ordered it to do had it not already amended the credit file reporting. The fact Mr M was in contact with Evolution and it agreed to not take further action on the arrears, isn’t the same as being in a formal arrangement to pay. Despite that, as I’ve said, Evolution offered to send an amendment to the credit reference agencies for the full two year period and it did that within a couple of days of it issuing its response to the complaint, which I think is reasonable. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that it shows that Mr M missed payments after that arrangement ended in 2025 as that’s what actually happened. I’ve considered the impact on Mr M. I don’t think I can fairly hold Evolution responsible for the issues Mr M has raised. That’s because, even if his credit file had shown an arrangement to pay I’m not persuaded it’s likely he would have been able to obtain finance without problems. In my experience mortgage lenders are likely to refuse an application from a borrower in arrears on another mortgage – but the same is true where a borrower is currently missing (or has very recently missed) payments by arrangement. To the extent that Mr M was unable to raise finance, I think that the ultimate cause of that was that Mr M was unable to maintain the payments on this secured loan around the same time – not how Evolution recorded that he hadn’t done so. I don’t think I can safely say that it’s more likely than not that Mr M would have successfully applied for another mortgage if his credit file had instead shown that he was missing payments by arrangement. In any event, our Investigator gave Mr M the opportunity to send us a copy of his full credit file so this point could be looked at in more detail but Mr M chose not to provide it. That was Mr M’s choice, but what flows from that is that our service is unable to consider any of his claims for his alleged financial loss because we can’t reach a fair outcome without sight of his full credit file as we need to see what other accounts may have had an impact on any lending decisions.

-- 3 of 4 --

As I said, it seems Experian is still reporting the account as not being in an arrangement to pay and I don’t know why that is. But, even if that was due to an error by Evolution (which I’m not saying it was) it would make no difference to the overall outcome for all the reasons I’ve explained. On top of that, since then the account would have been correctly reporting as back in arrears and not in an arrangement due to the arrangement to pay ending in June 2025. Having considered everything, I’m not therefore persuaded that Evolution not reporting the account as in an arrangement to pay was the cause of any financial loss Mr M is claiming. I leave it to Evolution and Mr M to try to resolve the Experian issue as I’ve set out above, and if that is proven to be an error by Evolution then that is a new complaint Mr M can raise at the time. But as far as this complaint goes, it seems Evolution made the request, and for all the reasons I’ve explained I don’t think even having the arrangement to pay noted on Mr M’s credit file would have changed the lending decisions made. Finally, Mr M has quoted various rules and regulations he feels Evolution has broken. We’re not the regulator and I’ve no power to fine or punish a business. We don’t make punitive awards, and I can’t sanction a business. It is clear Mr M feels very strongly about this matter, but we look at each complaint individually and if we think a business has already done enough to put things right then we won’t necessarily go into the details of what went wrong. We’re not about recriminations and attributing blame, especially in cases where the business has already put things right. We don’t award compensation just because a regulation was breached, a consumer also has to demonstrate that quantifiable financial loss flowed from that breach and was directly attributable to it. And that’s where Mr M’s complaint fails for all the reasons I’ve already explained. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Julia Meadows Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --