Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-5861719

The complaint Mr F complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC gave him incorrect information when he changed the date of the direct debit for his mortgage. What happened Mr F has a mortgage with Barclays. On 22 May 2025, he spoke to Barclays and asked for his direct debit to be changed to the 5th of each month. Barclays agreed to that and told Mr F that his next payment would be on 5 July 2025. On 4 July 2025, Mr F was surprised to receive a text message from Barclays that said his mortgage payment was late. When he spoke to Barclays it told him that a payment was required for June even though the direct debit had been changed. Barclays offered Mr F £300 compensation. It said it would remove the adverse information from Mr F’s credit file when he had made up the payment that was due in June 2025. Mr F does not consider Barclays offer is sufficient. He wants: • The late payment record removed from his mortgage account and credit file. • Barclays to provide written acknowledgement that Barclays accepts responsibility for the mishandling of his account. • An increased offer of compensation to reflect the financial burden, emotional distress and time spent resolving this matter. The investigator thought Barclays’ had already made an offer that was a fair and reasonable way to settle this complaint. Mr F did not accept what the investigator said. He responded to make a number of points, including: • The investigator had failed to take into account the financial and emotional impact of Barclays’ error. He was required to make two payments in a single month because of the mistake and that caused him significant financial strain. The stress was compounded by the threat of damage to his credit file. • Barclays had breached the FCA’s Principles, particularly principle 6 – paying due regard to his interests and treating him fairly, and principle 7 – paying due regard to his information needs and communicating in a way that was clear, fair and not misleading. • Barclays had breached the FCA’s Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC) rules. • Bearing in mind the distress, financial disruption and effort required to resolve this matter a fairer level of compensation would be between £500 and £750. That reflects repeated failings and the financial pressure caused by the error and significant worry about long

-- 1 of 3 --

term credit damage. 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. My role is to determine in my opinion what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of this case. In considering what is fair and reasonable I will take into account the relevant law and regulations, the regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and (where appropriate) what I consider to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. While I have taken into account the rules Mr F has put forward, they do not really make any difference here – and I would note that CONC does not apply here as this is a regulated mortgage contract. It is not in dispute that Barclays failed to treat Mr F fairly. It gave him incorrect and incomplete information about the payments that were due to his mortgage. That was very important information. Barclays should have taken much more care to make sure it gave Mr F the information he needed to make effective, timely, and informed decisions. What is left for me to decide is what is a fair way to put things right. Where a business has given incorrect information we would not tell it to honour that – just as we wouldn’t if the information was not in the complainant’s favour. The fair way to put things right is to put the affected party in the position they would have been in had they been given the correct information in the first place. I am satisfied that the correct position is that a payment was due in June and Mr F would always have been required to make that payment – it was not an additional payment. When Mr F changed the date of his direct debit Barclays should have told Mr F that he needed to make a manual payment to cover the payment that was due in June. It was reasonable for Barclays to require Mr F to make up the missed payment. Barclays explored a number of options with Mr F including making up the June payment over time, moving the July payment to the end of the month or making a lump sum payment. I think that was reasonable. In any of those scenarios, when the missed June payment is cleared, Barclays agreed to remove any adverse information relating to the missed payment. The credit file reflected the correct position – Mr F had not made the payment that was due. I consider the offer to remove the adverse information when the missed payment is made is fair in the circumstances here and taking into account the incorrect information given by Barclays. Barclays has already provided written acknowledgment of its mistake and apologised in its final response. That leaves compensation for the distress and inconvenience this matter has caused to Mr F. I don’t doubt anything Mr F has told us about the impact of this matter on him. But it was a one-off mistake. He found out what had happened on 4 July 2025 and Barclays issued its final response to his complaint, offering fair compensation on 14 July 2025. So Barclays put forward a reasonable way to sort things under two weeks after the mistake came to light and I am satisfied that it dealt with Mr F’s queries reasonably. While I understand that it came as a shock to Mr F that he needed to make a payment in June, he would always have had to make that payment. In all the circumstances, I consider the offer of £300 is a fair way to settle this complaint.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that Barclays Bank UK PLC should: • Pay Mr F £300. • When Mr F has made up the missed payment that was due in June 2025, clear all adverse information relating to the missed payment. His credit file should show no missed payments or arrears in respect of the June 2025 payment, Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026. Ken Rose Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --