A determination by the Financial Ombudsman has provided some clarification on the contentious issue of how repayment history data is to be recorded in credit files when a consumer has entered into a hardship variation.Since the 2014 introduction of comprehensive credit reporting, credit providers have been able to record details of a consumer's repayment history, such as whether payments are overdue.There has been a difference of opinion between lenders and consumer groups about how to deal with consumers who vary their loan contracts as a result of hardship. The question is whether an arrangement that allows the borrower to make smaller payments over a longer period or have a repayment holiday is a late payment.In the FOS determination (number 422745), the complaint was made by a consumer with a car loan. The lender entered a default listing on the borrower's credit file in January last year. In September the borrower entered into a payment arrangement, which varied the loan contract. The borrower complied with the varied payment arrangement.The lender recorded late payments after the variation was agreed to but FOS said it should not have recorded missed payments on the borrower's credit file during that period."Information about a person's repayment history is information about whether the person has met a contractual obligation to make a payment that is due and payable in a particular month," FOS said in its determination."The lender appears to have reported the applicant's repayment history based on compliance with the original contract, not the varied contract."It was inappropriate for the lender to record missed payment in September and October."In a commentary on the case, the Consumer Action Law Centre said: "Industry advocates have stated that repayment history information on a credit report should show the consumer to be in arrears in accordance with the repayments made under the initial contract."Consumer advocates believe hardship variations are extremely useful and consumers should be encouraged to enter into them, and have argued that any repayment history information must be reset to 'zero' once an arrangement is entered into."The FOS determination has come down on the consumer side of the argument, ruling that credit reports should not record repayments in arrears if the parties have agreed to change the contract following an application for hardship variation.