Upheld: credit file reporting error and account mismanagement complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6232561 of 2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00. credit file reporting error and account mismanagement complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6232561 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Barclays Bank UK PLC |
| Product | consumer credit agreement (running account credit or fixed sum loan) for insurance policy payments |
| Claim type | credit file reporting error and account mismanagement |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Barclays Bank UK PLC must: (1) Write to the third-party who reported the adverse information and ask them to remove the late/missed payment entries made from September 2024 to November 2024 from Miss P's credit file; (2) Pay Miss P £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. |
Summary
Miss P complained to Barclays about adverse credit file entries reported from September to November 2024 relating to an insurance policy credit agreement she had held since 2010. She had cancelled the direct debit in February 2020 following separation from her partner, but her ex-partner subsequently continued making payments from his own account without her knowledge. When Barclays sold the account to a third-party in 2023, Miss P remained as the named account holder, leading to late payment markers being reported against her for a policy she had received no benefit from for over four years. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Barclays should have either cancelled the policy or amended the account holder details when the ex-partner began making sole payments, as direct debit instructions must come from the named account holder for regulatory compliance. Barclays was instructed to contact the third-party to remove the adverse entries and pay Miss P £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Barclays failed to take appropriate action when Miss P cancelled the direct debit in February 2020. When the ex-partner began making sole payments from his own account, Barclays should have either cancelled the policy or amended the account holder details to reflect this change, as direct debit instructions must come from the named account holder for regulatory compliance. By maintaining Miss P as the account holder when transferring the account to the third-party in 2023, Barclays caused adverse credit information to be reported against her for a policy she had received no benefit from for over four years. The ombudsman was not persuaded by Barclays' argument that Miss P should have cancelled the policy herself, as the operational responsibility lay with Barclays to manage the account correctly.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank UK PLC, all decisions | 11,138 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website