Not upheld: overdraft account management, debt collection referral, credit file reporting, complaint handling delay complaint against THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (RBS)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6208262 of 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00. overdraft account management, debt collection referral, credit file reporting, complaint handling delay complaint against THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (RBS). Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6208262 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (RBS) |
| Product | current account with overdraft |
| Claim type | overdraft account management, debt collection referral, credit file reporting, complaint handling delay |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No additional remedy ordered. RBS's previous payment of £50 for complaint handling delay was deemed sufficient. |
Summary
Ms E complained about RBS's handling of her overdraft account, including its referral to a debt collection agency, alleged lack of communication and payment opportunity, and negative credit file impact. RBS acknowledged only a delay in responding to the complaint and paid £50 compensation. The ombudsman found that RBS acted within its contractual rights and industry standards in all material respects, provided appropriate notice and payment opportunity letters, and fairly recorded the account status with credit reference agencies. Although the advisor missed an opportunity to clarify that wages could still be paid into the account during a June call, this did not constitute unfair treatment. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint and found the £50 compensation already paid was sufficient.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that RBS acted within its contractual rights and industry norms by passing the account to a debt collection agency, provided appropriate notice and payment opportunity communications, and fairly recorded the account status with credit reference agencies. While the advisor missed an opportunity to clarify that wages could still be paid into the account, this did not constitute unfair treatment as payment information had been provided in letters. The inconsistent credit file reporting appeared more favourable to Ms E than it should be, so no intervention was warranted.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (RBS), all decisions | 18 | 6% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website