DRN-6232561

The complaint Miss P complains about information she thought Barclays Bank UK PLC (“Barclays”) had reported to her credit file in relation to an account she held with them. What happened In February 2010, Miss P took out an insurance policy to cover her home. A credit agreement was signed with Barclays to spread the cost of the policy over monthly instalments, rather than paying for it in a lump sum. The broker for the policy was a third- party company. The policy was renewed each year until sometime in 2020, when Miss P said she cancelled it as she moved out of the home, following a separation with her partner at the time. The payments were being made using a joint account Miss P held with her ex-partner. Miss P said that Barclays had sold and transferred their home insurance products to a third- party in around 2023. Miss P complained to Barclays in February 2025 after she said she was made aware of late payments reported to her credit file from September 2024 - November 2024. Miss P said she was told by the third-party that the policy was solely in her name. However, at some point before Barclays had sold their accounts to the third-party, Miss P’s ex-partner was said to have contacted Barclays and had the direct debit instructions amended without Miss P’s knowledge or permission. The account was then sold to the third-party and Miss P’s ex- partner had then continued to pay towards the policy for several years, before cancelling the direct debit with the third-party, without cancelling the policy. Barclays issued a final response to Miss P in April 2025. In summary, they explained that they didn’t apply any missed payment markers to Miss P’s credit file in 2024. Unhappy with Barclays’ response, Miss P referred her complaint to our service. Barclays in their submissions to our service explained that they had no record of the policy being cancelled in 2020. They said the direct debit for the policy was paid from a joint account Miss P held with her ex-partner until February 2020. Once that direct debit was cancelled, payments began to be made by Miss P’s ex-partner. Barclays went on to say that any record of the policy they held being linked to Miss P ended in 2023 when they sold it to a third-party. And so, any adverse information reported would have been done so by the third- party. Our investigator initially didn’t uphold Miss P’s complaint. Then, after requesting further information, our investigator changed her opinion and upheld it. The investigator set out what she thought Barclays needed to do to put things right, which included writing to the third- party company and asking them to amend the information that was reported to Miss P’s credit file.

-- 1 of 3 --

Miss P accepted the investigator’s view. Barclays responded and said they didn’t agree. Among other things, they said they felt it was Miss P’s responsibility to ensure the policy was cancelled, and they didn’t think they did anything wrong by allowing Miss P’s ex-partner to continue with payments using his sole account. As Barclays disagreed with the investigator’s outcome, the complaint was passed to me to decide. 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’m upholding this complaint and I’ll explain why below. I’m aware I have summarised events and comments made by both parties very briefly, in less detail than has been provided, largely in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. In addition, if there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I haven’t. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual point or argument to be able to reach what I think is a fair outcome. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as an alternative to the courts. To be clear, Barclays and Miss P have been unable to provide a copy of the credit agreement which is in relation to this complaint. Having said that, from the information supplied, it appears a form of running account credit or fixed sum loan agreement was supplied to Miss P by Barclays. Entering into regulated consumer credit contracts such as this as a lender is a regulated activity. So, I’m satisfied I can consider Miss P’s complaint about Barclays. Miss P says that in early 2020 she contacted Barclays to cancel the direct debit that was being used to make payment towards the agreement she took out with them. She says the agreement was solely in her name, but the direct debit was at the time taking payment from a joint account she held with her ex-partner. I have listened to a call Miss P held with Barclays in April 2025. During that call Barclays confirmed that the last payment which was collected from the joint account Miss P held with her ex-partner was in February 2020. I think this corroborates Miss P’s version of events in that she contacted Barclays in February 2020. It was Miss P’s intention to cancel the policy in February 2020, and she believes that happened, considering no more payments were taken from the joint account. However, it turned out that Miss P’s ex-partner resumed payments using a sole account in his name. It’s worth noting that from letters I have seen that Barclays sent after February 2020 in relation to the account, they were all addressed to Miss P. I can’t see why this policy remained active and in Miss P’s name after February 2020, when all involvement from her in relation to the account had stopped at that time. Barclays say that Miss P should have cancelled the policy as well as the payment and that there was no operational trigger to amend the name on the policy. However, I’m not persuaded by Barclays’ comments here. My understanding is that generally, direct debit instructions need to be made from a bank account held by the named account holder (the borrower) to ensure compliance with financial regulations and to verify creditworthiness. So, it seems that Barclays should have either cancelled the policy or amended the details and account holder to Miss P’s ex-partner, considering payment was being made solely by him.

-- 2 of 3 --

I can’t see that this occurred, and I’m not persuaded by the limited information Barclays has supplied when our investigator has asked reasonable questions about why the direct debit details were changed and by whom. And so, when the account was sold and transferred to a third-party, it was Miss P’s details that were given as she remained the account holder. This has now resulted in adverse information being reported to Miss P’s credit file, due to credit being supplied on a policy she has had no benefit from since February 2020. I don’t think this is fair and reasonable. My understanding is that Barclays are no longer the account holders as this was transferred to a third-party, who ultimately are the entity which reported the adverse information. As both parties are aware, I can’t make a direction for the third- party to amend the information they have reported, as the complaint that has been brought to our service was against Barclays. And so, as I’m satisfied Barclays wrongfully kept Miss P as the account holder when they sold the account to the third-party, the only direction I can make is to tell Barclays to contact the third-party to resolve matters here and ask them to amend the information they have reported. If the third-party were to not act upon this within a reasonable timeframe, then I suggest Miss P to raise a separate complaint directly with the third-party. Distress and inconvenience Miss P has explained in detail the impact this complaint has had on her. And the time she has spent in trying to get this matter resolved. In light of this, I think it would be fair and reasonable for Barclays to pay Miss P £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold this complaint and I instruct Barclays Bank UK PLC to put things right by doing the following: • Write to the third-party who reported the adverse information to Miss P’s credit file and ask them to remove the late/missed payment entries made in September 2024 to November 2024. • Pay Miss P £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss P to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Ronesh Amin Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --