Not upheld: alleged misrepresentation regarding credit card terms and credit file reporting complaint against Nationwide Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Ms Z complained that Nationwide Building Society misled her about a credit card by stating no repayments were required during a 15-month interest-free period, leading to missed payments and negative credit file markers. Ms Z claimed the in-branch staff member failed to explain that minimum monthly payments were still required during the 0% interest period and cited language difficulties as a contributing factor. The ombudsman found the terms and conditions clearly stated minimum payments were required and were signed by Ms Z, and that monthly statements also made this explicit. The ombudsman determined that without evidence Ms Z informed staff of language difficulties in branch, Nationwide could not be faulted for failing to provide additional support. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the terms and conditions clearly stated minimum monthly payments were required and were signed by Ms Z. Monthly statements also made this clear. Without evidence that Ms Z informed staff of language difficulties while in branch, the ombudsman could not conclude Nationwide treated her unfairly. The ombudsman determined it was more likely Ms Z was confused about how the interest-free period and minimum payment obligation operated together, rather than being misled. Nationwide correctly reported accurate information to credit reference agencies.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website