Not upheld: misleading information regarding balance transfer eligibility complaint against Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W applied for a Virgin Money credit card intending to use its 0% balance transfer offer to transfer a balance from another provider's card. After the card was approved, his balance transfer attempt was declined because his card, although provided in the UK, was underwritten by a US bank. Virgin Money's terms and website stated that only cards underwritten by UK financial organisations were eligible for balance transfers. The ombudsman found that Virgin Money did not mislead Mr W, as it clearly communicated the eligibility criteria and specifically warned that some cards from the other provider have UK branding but are underwritten by US banks. The ombudsman concluded that Mr W should have verified eligibility before completing his application and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Virgin Money clearly communicated through its terms and website that balance transfers could only be accepted from cards underwritten by UK financial organisations, and specifically warned that some cards provided by A have UK branding but are underwritten by US banks. Since the balance transfer eligibility depended on where the card was underwritten (not where it was provided), and this information was available to Mr W before he completed his application, Virgin Money did not mislead him. The ombudsman noted that Mr W should have verified the eligibility with Virgin Money or provider A before completing his application, particularly since the balance transfer was the primary reason for applying for the card. The ombudsman also found that the partially completed first application could not be relied upon to determine whether the balance transfer would have been authorised.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website