Partially upheld: Credit file / adverse marker disputes complaint against Barclays Bank UK Plc trading as Barclaycard

Decision detail

Summary

X complained that Barclaycard failed to promptly update his credit file after he paid off his credit card balance in December 2025, which he believed led to his loan application being declined in January 2026. X also complained about delays in refunding an overpayment and unclear information about account closure. Barclaycard partly upheld the complaint, accepting the overpayment and account closure errors but disputing the credit file reporting issue. The ombudsman found that Barclaycard's reporting was fair and consistent with regulatory guidance, that the delay in credit file updates was reasonable (six to eight weeks is standard), and that no causal link could be established between the credit file and the loan decline, as lenders consider multiple factors. The ombudsman upheld Barclaycard's offer of £150 compensation for the accepted errors regarding overpayment refund delay and unclear account closure information.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Barclaycard's reporting may have been considered by the lender, it would not have been the sole or main reason for the loan decline, as lenders consider multiple factors including existing balances and available credit on open accounts. The ombudsman accepted that Barclaycard's reporting was fair and consistent with ICO guidance, and that a delay of six to eight weeks between sending information to CRAs and it appearing on a credit file is reasonable and commonly occurs. The ombudsman upheld Barclaycard's acceptance of errors regarding the overpayment refund delay and unclear account closure information, and found £150 compensation appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by these specific errors.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website