Not upheld: misleading information about product eligibility and features; failure to correct misunderstanding complaint against Barclays UK PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6086289 of 2026-04-10T00:00:00+00:00. misleading information about product eligibility and features; failure to correct misunderstanding complaint against Barclays UK PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6086289 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays UK PLC |
| Product | Mortgage |
| Claim type | misleading information about product eligibility and features; failure to correct misunderstanding |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld and no action was required from Barclays. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs J complained that Barclays misled them into believing they could access Mortgage Charter interest-only support after a rate switch, when they were actually ineligible due to having previously used the support for a term extension in January 2025. During a May 2025 phone call, the adviser stated the Mortgage Charter was non-advised and Mr J would need to check eligibility himself, but Mr J did not disclose his prior use. Mr J later confirmed in writing his understanding that he could use the Mortgage Charter, which the adviser acknowledged but did not correct. When Mr J attempted to apply on 1 July 2025, he was denied due to his prior use. Mr J requested a callback during the 11-day cooling-off period but Barclays did not provide one, and the period expired. The ombudsman found no misleading advice was given and that Barclays was not obliged to provide a callback within the cooling-off period, so the complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the adviser provided general information rather than advice about the Mortgage Charter, explicitly stated it was non-advised, and told Mr J he would need to check eligibility himself. The adviser specifically mentioned the eligibility requirement about not having previously extended term, but Mr J did not disclose his prior use. The adviser's failure to correct Mr J's subsequent email assertion did not constitute confirmation of eligibility, as the acknowledgment only related to proceeding online without advice. Regarding the cooling-off period, Barclays was not obliged to provide a callback within the 11-day window and had correctly informed Mr J of his cancellation rights. Mr J was aware of the deadline and it was his responsibility to cancel if he wished to avoid ERCs.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays UK PLC, all decisions | 1 | 0% |
| Mortgage, all decisions | 25,098 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website