Barclays Bank · DRN-6324007

The complaint Mrs P is unhappy Barclays Bank UK PLC provided her with five loans which she says were unaffordable. What happened Mrs P successfully applied for the following five loans with Barclays Bank: Amount Opened Closed Loan one £7,000 November 2011 February 2015 Loan two £10,200 February 2015 October 2015 Loan three £11,300 October 2015 August 2016 Loan four £11,800 August 2016 January 2017 Loan five £20,000 December 2017 January 2023 This was due to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of around £374. Loans one to four were part of a consolidation chain (in other words, each loan repaid the previous one) and loan five was a standalone loan. In June 2025, Mrs P complained to Barclays Bank that she’d been irresponsibly lent to. Barclays Bank responded to Mrs P’s complaint in July 2025, explaining that the complaint fell outside the timeframes set by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and so, they would not be reviewing it. Mrs P wasn’t happy with Barclays Bank’s response, so she referred her complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. An investigator looked at her complaint and said it could reasonably be considered as being about an unfair credit relationship as described in Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“Section 140A”). That being so, she felt it had been referred in time and went on to consider the merits of the complaint. Having done so, whilst she agreed the first two loans were unaffordable, she explained no compensation was due as Mrs P could have raised the complaint sooner than she did. Mrs P didn’t agree with the opinion of the investigator both about the time-limits involved and the merits of her assessment. Because an agreement couldn’t be reached, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. I issued a provisional decision explaining that I was wasn’t intending to uphold the complaint. I explained why, as follows: Why I can’t look into Mrs P’s complaint about loans one, two, three and four This part of my decision is solely to decide whether we have the power to consider Mrs P’s complaint about the first four loans under our jurisdiction. I won’t comment on the detail of the dispute.

-- 1 of 5 --

The rules that govern our service are set out in the Handbook of the FCA, specifically the Dispute Resolution section (DISP). DISP 2.8.2 sets out the time limits that apply. The parts of the rule relevant to this case are: “The Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint if the complainant refers it to the Financial Ombudsman Service: […] (2) more than: (a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later) (b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint; unless the complainant referred the complaint to the respondent or to the Ombudsman within that period and has a written acknowledgement or some other record of the complaint having been received; unless: (3) in the view of the Ombudsman, the failure to comply with the time limits in DISP 2.8.2 R or DISP 2.8.7 R was as a result of exceptional circumstances; or […] (5) the respondent has consented to the Ombudsman considering the complaint [when] the time limits in DISP 2.8.2 R […] have expired […]” In this case, Mrs P complained in June 2025. Loans one to four were all opened before August 2016 and closed by January 2017 so it’s clear the complaint was brought more than six years after these events. Barclays Bank haven’t consented to us looking into events from more than six years ago. I now need to consider when Mrs P ought to have become aware she had cause for complaint. So, I need to consider when Mrs P knew, or ought to have known: • There was a problem • That she suffered or may have suffered a loss as a result • And that someone else is at least partly responsible for this problem (and who that someone is). Mrs P told us she became aware the loans were causing her financial difficulties between 2015 and 2017. She said the pattern of loan consolidation created a cycle of debt which was unsustainable. So, it’s fair to say she was aware, at the point she obtained the loans during those years, that they were contributing to her financial difficulties. I appreciate Mrs P has told us she didn’t know Barclays Bank were to blame for this at the time or that she could complain about it. However, I think she ought to have become aware of her cause for complaint much earlier. I say this because, based on what she told us, Mrs P would have been aware at the point she applied for the loans that they were unaffordable and contributing to her financial difficulties. And whilst I can understand Mrs P only recently became aware of the guidance on affordable and responsible lending, given it was Barclays Bank who approved the loan applications in the first place, I think Mrs P ought to have apportioned some of the blame to them. So, I’m satisfied it’s reasonable to say Mrs P ought to have become aware between 2015 and 2017, that Barclays Bank were at least partly to blame for these problems. As this was more than three years before she did complain, this part of the rule doesn’t extend her time to complain.

-- 2 of 5 --

That just leaves me to consider whether exceptional circumstances prevented Mrs P from bringing the complaint in time. When asked about exceptional circumstances, Mrs P said she was under significant financial and emotional stress at the time which made it difficult for her to assess the situation objectively. Her focus was on trying to stay afloat and not on questioning Barclays Bank’s lending decisions. She reiterated that, without the guidance she recently came across, she didn’t know there was a process available to challenge what had happened. I’m sorry to hear about the impact this matter has had on Mrs P over the years however, I’m not persuaded this changes what I’ve explained above: that whilst Mrs P might not have been aware, I think she ought reasonably to have become aware sooner and more than three years before she complained. Therefore, this isn’t enough for me to be able to consider the complaint. Finally, I’ve thought about whether considering this complaint more broadly as being about an unfair relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 would mean we could look at it. But even if it could (and should) reasonably be interpreted in that way I’m satisfied this wouldn’t affect the outcome in this particular case. I say this because although our investigator said all five loans were part of a consolidation chain, loan five was actually a standalone loan – the others had all been fully repaid almost a year before loan five was drawn. This means the consolidation chain and so, the relationship, ended when loan four closed in January 2017 – which is also more than six years ago. I realise my decision will come as a disappointment for Mrs P, but for the reasons set out above I can’t consider this part of her irresponsible complaint about Barclays Bank. That’s not because I don’t want to, but I simply don’t have the power to do so. Loan five Barclays Bank also think the complaint about loan five was referred to us too late and I understand why. I say this because the lending decision took place more than six years ago. But as this loan closed in 2023, which was within the last six years, I agree with our investigator that that we can consider it. I say this because I think this complaint can reasonably be considered as being about an unfair relationship as Mrs P says Barclays continually lent to her thereby increasing her overall debt. This may have made the relationship unfair as she said this contributed to her remaining in debt for over a decade. I acknowledge Barclays Bank still don’t agree we can look at this complaint, but as I don’t think it should be upheld, I don’t intend to comment on this further. Given what Mrs P has complained about, I need to consider whether Barclays Bank’s decision to lend to her, or their later actions, created unfairness in the relationship between her and Barclays Bank such that they ought to have acted to put right the unfairness – and if so whether they did enough to remove that unfairness. Mrs P’s relationship with Barclays Bank is therefore likely to be unfair if they didn’t carry out proportionate affordability checks and doing so would have revealed their lending to be irresponsible or unaffordable, and if they didn’t then remove the unfairness this created somehow. We’ve set out our general approach to complaints about unaffordable or irresponsible lending on our website, and I’ve taken this into account in deciding Mrs P’s case. I’ve decided the loan was provided fairly. Let me explain: • Due to the passage of time, Barclays Bank don’t hold any affordability or credit check information for this lending decision. As it took place in December 2017, I don’t find it surprising that Barclays Bank no longer hold details of the checks they carried out at

-- 3 of 5 --

the time. Businesses are not obliged by law or good industry practice to hold information indefinitely - generally they only do so for six years or so. But without the information, I can’t reasonably say that Barclays Bank carried out reasonable and proportionate checks on this occasion. • In order to try to understand what Barclays Bank might have found had they carried out reasonable checks, our investigator obtained Mrs P’s bank statements from the time. That’s not to say Barclays Bank ought to have asked for them, but they would give us an understanding of her financial situation at the time. • I reviewed Mrs P’s personal bank statements and I can see that, in the three months leading up to the application, she was earning a monthly income of around £1,661. Her non-discretionary spending was, on average, around £745 per month, which includes bills, food and petrol costs and her monthly contribution to the joint account. • Based on this, and after factoring in the monthly loan repayment of around £374, Mrs P was left with a disposable income of around £542 per month. So, I’m satisfied Barclays Bank made a fair decision to lend. For the reasons I’ve already given, I don’t think Barclays Bank lent irresponsibly to Mrs P or otherwise treated her unfairly. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that Section 140A or anything else would, given the facts of this complaint, lead to a different outcome here. I appreciate Mrs P feels very strongly about this matter and I know this isn’t the outcome she hoped for. But for the reasons above, I’m not asking Barclays Bank to do anything to put things right. Barclays Bank responded to the provisional decision confirming they accepted it. Mrs P also responded saying she disagreed, mainly with the fact that loan five wasn’t part of the consolidation chain. So, she felt she had complained within six years of the lending relationship ending. Finally, she disagreed that she ought to have complained earlier than she did and reiterated the financial difficulties she was going through between 2015 and 2017. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’ve reached the same outcome as I did in my provisional decision, and for the same reasons. I understand Mrs P disagrees that loan five wasn’t part of the consolidation chain, but the loan statements show that loan four was closed in January 2017 and loan five was opened 11 months later – in December 2017. So, I’m satisfied loan five wasn’t part of the refinancing chain. Looking at her bank statements, I can see she did consolidate a separate loan with loan five however this was not loan four. I also appreciate what Mrs P has said about not understanding affordability rules however, as I explained in my provisional decision, I’m persuaded she ought to have at least put some of the blame on Barclays for the financial difficulties she experienced. Overall, I’ve not seen anything which changes my provisional decision. And so, it stands that I don’t uphold Mrs P’s complaint against Barclays Bank.

-- 4 of 5 --

My final decision For the reasons I’ve outlined above, I’m not upholding Mrs P’s complaint about Barclays Bank UK PLC. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Amelie Makris Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --