Not upheld: irresponsible lending; persistent debt handling; adequacy of financial support complaint against Clydesdale Bank plc t/a Virgin Money
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6273146 of 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending; persistent debt handling; adequacy of financial support complaint against Clydesdale Bank plc t/a Virgin Money. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6273146 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Clydesdale Bank plc t/a Virgin Money |
| Product | credit card |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending; persistent debt handling; adequacy of financial support |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman reminded Virgin Money of their obligations to treat Miss B with forbearance moving forward and encouraged Miss B to keep in contact with Virgin Money about any difficulties she faces. |
Summary
Miss B, aged 18, received a £5,000 credit card from Virgin Money in August 2023. She complained in November 2024 that this constituted irresponsible lending, but Virgin Money rejected the complaint in January 2025. Miss B failed to refer this complaint to FOS within six months, so it could not be examined. In September 2025, Miss B made a second complaint raising three additional points: that Virgin Money failed to account for her age and inexperience, mishandled her persistent debt notification, and offered limited support. The ombudsman found that Virgin Money was legally entitled to issue credit to an 18-year-old, fully complied with persistent debt notification requirements under CONC 6.7.27 R, and offered appropriate support through signposting to internal teams and external debt advice services. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied FCA rules and guidance to assess whether Virgin Money complied with their regulatory obligations. On the original irresponsible lending complaint, the ombudsman was unable to examine it as it was referred outside the six-month deadline and Virgin Money did not consent to late consideration. Regarding the three additional points: (1) Virgin Money was legally entitled to issue credit to an 18-year-old as this is the minimum age for financial responsibility; (2) the persistent debt letter fully complied with CONC 6.7.27 R requirements including plain language notification, explanation of increased payments, encouragement to contact the firm, warning of implications, and provision of debt advice contact details; (3) Virgin Money offered appropriate support through signposting to internal teams and external debt advice bodies, and there was no evidence Miss B had previously raised financial difficulties. The ombudsman also considered Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but found no unfair relationship.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Clydesdale Bank plc t/a Virgin Money, all decisions | 3 | 0% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website