Not upheld: policy change and rate switch eligibility; alleged mis-advice complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6227180 of 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00. policy change and rate switch eligibility; alleged mis-advice complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6227180 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays Bank UK PLC |
| Product | mortgage |
| Claim type | policy change and rate switch eligibility; alleged mis-advice |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | £150 compensation for customer service issues, to be paid if not already done so. |
Summary
Mrs C and Mr I complained that Barclays mis-advised them regarding rate switches when porting their mortgage in June 2024. They wanted to align two mortgage accounts with different maturity dates but were unable to do so after Barclays changed its rate switch policy window from 180 days to 90 days in February 2025. The ombudsman found that the adviser provided accurate information based on Barclays' policy at the time of the April 2024 conversation and that Barclays was entitled to change its policy without prior notification to customers. The complaint was not upheld, though £150 compensation was awarded for customer service issues.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the adviser provided accurate information based on Barclays' 180-day rate switch policy that was in effect at the time of the April 2024 porting application. The adviser was not required to disclose potential future policy changes, as lenders are entitled to modify their policies at any time. The information given in 2024 was correct and accurate, and the subsequent policy change from 180 days to 90 days in February 2025 does not constitute mis-advice. The ombudsman verified that the products and dates mentioned by the adviser were available as described.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank UK PLC, all decisions | 11,143 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website