Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Starling
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6394869 of 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00. Other regulated complaint complaint against Starling. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6394869 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Starling |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | Other regulated complaint |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. The ombudsman noted that if Mr M wishes to raise concerns about how the scheme operates, these should be directed to the British Business Bank or relevant government department. Alternatively, D could be dissolved through formal insolvency processes such as creditors' voluntary liquidation. |
Summary
D, a limited company, took out a Bounce Back Loan with Starling during the Covid-19 pandemic. The loan fell into arrears and D ceased trading with no income to repay the outstanding balance of approximately £2,500. When D applied to be struck off the Companies House register in 2023, Starling objected due to the outstanding debt, preventing the strike-off. Mr M, D's director, requested Starling remove the objection in March 2025, but Starling refused, citing scheme requirements. The ombudsman found that Starling was required by the BBL Scheme to maintain the objection indefinitely while the balance remained outstanding, and therefore had not acted unfairly or unreasonably. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Starling was required to act in accordance with the BBL Scheme, which was established by the UK Government via the British Business Bank. The scheme requires lenders to maintain objections to proposed strike-offs indefinitely where an outstanding BBL balance exists. The BBL guarantee provided by the UK Government to lenders required them to demonstrate all reasonable steps to recover the lending had been taken, and borrowers remain liable for outstanding balances at all times. Therefore, Starling's maintenance of the objection was not unfair or unreasonable but rather required by the scheme.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Starling, all decisions | 1 | 0% |
| Other regulated complaint, all decisions | 18,717 | 18% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 23,643 | 29% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website