Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6008429

The complaint Mrs GA is unhappy with how Barclays Bank UK PLC handled disputed transactions on her account and customer service issues she experienced. What happened There’s only one issue that remains in dispute and the facts are well known to both parties so I’ve not gone into great detail here. In summary, Mrs GA’s complaint arises from disputed transactions present on her account. Mrs GA was then given incorrect information during the dispute which led to her being charged interest incorrectly and adverse information being reported to her credit file. One of our Investigators partially upheld Mrs GA’s complaint and Barclays accepted the Investigator’s recommendation. Our Investigator held Mrs GA liable for the disputed transactions but concluded that: • Barclays should remove any interest applied to Mrs GA’s account after September 2024 because Barclays had told Mrs GA that interest wouldn’t be charged • Barclays should remove the adverse information because Barclays told Mrs GA not to make a payment • Barclays should compensate Mrs GA a total of £250 for the impact of their mistakes Mrs GA asked for an Ombudsman to review her complaint because she didn’t agree with the compensation awarded. Mrs GA explained to us that the adverse information has impacted her ability to obtain a mortgage which will increase the cost of the mortgage but could also result in higher tax obligations. Mrs GA said that Barclays are a mortgage provider themselves and so should understand the significance of their actions. 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’m satisfied interest applied to the account after September 2024 and any adverse credit information should be removed in line with what’s been agreed – so all that’s left for me to decide is whether additional compensation ought to be paid. I’ve carefully considered what Mrs GA has said about the knock-on impacts of Barclays’ actions and, having done so, I’m persuaded additional compensation is warranted. It’s important to consider that we don’t award compensation as a way of punishing a business for making a mistake. Our awards aren’t punitive and are instead meant to reflect the impact a mistake has had on a consumer and, in so far as is possible, aim to put them back in the position they would have been in if the mistake hadn’t been made.

-- 1 of 2 --

This doesn’t, however, mean that it’s reasonable for all eventualities to be compensated for as the level of compensation also depends on whether a loss was reasonably foreseeable. When Barclays gave Mrs GA incorrect information which seemingly led to adverse information being reported, it’s not reasonably foreseeable that Mrs GA would be prevented from obtaining a mortgage, or that the mortgage options available to Mrs GA would be significantly more expensive. I appreciate Mrs GA may think it’s obvious that this would happen but the fact that adverse information can impact a customer obtaining credit doesn’t equate to Barclays reasonably foreseeing the impact on Mrs GA’s individual circumstances. In addition to the above, there’s also the consideration that other factors, such as market conditions, will have contributed to the mortgage options available to Mrs GA and so the impact on Mrs GA can’t all be attributed to the actions or inactions of Barclays. On balance, Barclays have agreed that the adverse information shouldn’t be reported and so there’ll be no direct ongoing impact to Mrs GA’s credit file. Barclays have also agreed to pay £250 which, for the reasons I’ve explained above, is a fair reflection of the impact on Mrs GA. Putting things right As agreed, Barclays should: • Pay a total of £250 compensation • Remove interest and charges applied after September 2024, if not already done so • Remove any adverse credit information still being reported for October, November, December 2024 and January and February 2025 My final decision My final decision is that I uphold Mrs GA’s complaint and direct Barclays to resolve the complaint as above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs G to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026. Freyja Dudley Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --