Not upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC (trading as Barclaycard)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms W complained that Barclaycard refused to remove a missed payment marker from her credit file relating to a July 2023 late payment, which she attributed to exceptional circumstances involving loss of access to her banking facilities. She also claimed the adverse marker caused her to receive higher interest rates on new borrowing and that Barclaycard had provided poor service in handling her complaint over two years. The ombudsman found the missed payment marker was correctly reported as Ms W could have called Barclaycard directly to make the payment, and that even if the marker affected her borrowing costs, Barclaycard would not be liable for an accurate reflection of account management. While acknowledging Barclaycard's initial service failings, the ombudsman found the £200 compensation already paid was fair and reasonable, and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although Ms W experienced genuine difficulties accessing her banking facilities, it was not impossible for her to make the payment on time as she could have called Barclaycard directly. The late payment was a factual breach of her contractual commitment to make the minimum payment each month. While the ombudsman acknowledged Barclaycard's service failings in its initial handling of Ms W's complaint, these failings did not change the fact that the payment was late and should have been reported. The ombudsman noted that even if the marker caused Ms W to receive higher interest rates on new borrowing, this would not make Barclaycard liable because the marker accurately reflects how the account was managed. The £200 compensation was deemed appropriate for Barclaycard's specific service failings, not for the broader financial difficulties Ms W experienced.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website