Not upheld: coercive and threatening behaviour / credit agreement liability / default registration complaint against Clydesdale Financial Services Limited (trading as Barclays Partner Finance)

Decision detail

Summary

Miss P complained that BPF unfairly held her liable for two mobile phone finance agreements taken in March 2023, claiming she was coerced and threatened by another person (D) into applying for them and never received the phones. She also objected to defaults registered on her credit record. BPF investigated and concluded insufficient evidence showed coercion, noting contradictory police records and the online nature of the applications. The ombudsman upheld BPF's decision, finding the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate coercion despite Miss P's documented abusive relationship with D, and confirmed the defaults were properly registered. BPF's £100 compensation for delays in responding to the complaint was upheld as fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Miss P provided evidence of being in an abusive relationship with D, the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that D coerced her into applying for the specific credit agreements. The ombudsman noted that the applications were made online with no in-person interaction, and Miss P made no mention of coercion in her initial July 2023 complaint. The contradictory police records (theft vs coercive control) created legitimate uncertainty. The ombudsman concluded it was reasonable for BPF to require stronger evidence before cancelling the agreements, particularly given the informal nature of ombudsman proceedings and inability to cross-examine witnesses. The defaults were properly registered in accordance with CCA 1974 and ICO guidelines. The £100 compensation for the 10-month delay in responding was deemed fair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website