Not upheld: poor customer service, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, unfair decline of forbearance arrangement complaint against Starling Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5643782 of 2026-04-02T00:00:00+00:00. poor customer service, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, unfair decline of forbearance arrangement complaint against Starling Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5643782 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Starling Bank Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | poor customer service, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, unfair decline of forbearance arrangement |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No further action required. Starling Bank Limited has already paid £150 compensation for communication failings. |
Summary
Mrs B, on behalf of her limited company S, complained that Starling Bank provided poor customer service, failed to make reasonable adjustments for her ADHD diagnosis, and unfairly declined to agree a reduced repayment arrangement for S's £50,000 bounce back loan. S had fallen into arrears after property investments funded by the loan failed to deliver promised returns. Starling had already upheld the complaint in part and paid £150 compensation. The ombudsman found that Starling treated S fairly by declining further forbearance beyond the comprehensive Pay As You Grow options and the temporary reduced repayment arrangement already provided, and that Starling had made reasonable efforts to accommodate Mrs B's disability. The ombudsman declined to uphold the complaint and required no further action.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that BBLs are unregulated products with built-in Pay As You Grow forbearance options, and there is no legal or regulatory requirement for additional forbearance beyond these. While Starling's initial temporary reduced repayment arrangement was fair, their decline of a second forbearance request was reasonable given concerns that S was unlikely to resume full monthly repayments in the near term. Banks have obligations only to agree to affordable arrangements and not delay matters unfairly when debt is likely to worsen. The ombudsman noted that Starling clearly explained the consequences of default and that recording arrears on the credit file was consistent with the loan terms and good industry practice. Regarding service issues, Starling had made reasonable efforts including logging the ADHD diagnosis and arranging Welfare Support Team contact, and had already compensated for communication failures with £150.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Starling Bank Limited, all decisions | 992 | 25% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website