Not upheld: Failure to apply capital repayment holiday under Pay As You Grow scheme complaint against Barclays Bank UK PLC

Decision detail

Summary

X, a limited company, complained that Barclays failed to apply requested capital repayment holidays to its Bounce Back Loan, resulting in repayments being taken in February and March 2025 when X believed payment holidays were in place. Mr K, X's director, claimed he had requested CRHs in February 2025 and again on 7 March 2025, but Barclays found no evidence of successful applications and no confirmation emails were sent. The ombudsman found that even if a February request had been made, it would not have met the 20-day notice requirement for the 28 February payment. For the March repayment, the ombudsman concluded on the balance of probabilities that no CRH was successfully applied, noting the absence of confirmation emails, consistent system records showing no request processed, and Mr K's failure to provide independent evidence. The complaint was not upheld as Barclays had not made an error.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test to determine what likely happened. For the February repayment, even if a CRH request had been made in mid-February, it would not have met the requirement of being submitted more than 20 days before the 28 February repayment date, so the payment would have been due regardless. For the March repayment, the ombudsman found no credible evidence that a CRH was successfully applied. The absence of a confirmation email was significant, as this was part of the automatic process confirming successful application. Barclays' records were internally consistent showing no request submitted, no confirmation issued, and no reduction in available holidays. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr K's belief that a CRH had been arranged but concluded this belief was likely mistaken, possibly due to misunderstanding the self-service application process. The responsibility for ensuring successful application rested with Mr K as director.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website