DRN-6269040

The complaint Miss P is unhappy with her MBNA Limited credit card and the information MBNA provided about it. What happened Miss P took out her MBNA credit card in January 2024. The credit card included a cashback reward for 36 months and no foreign exchange fees for 12 months. In July 2025 Miss P approached MBNA with concerns about her cashback as she had understood it to be a 0.5% cashback and the cashback amounts she had seen on her credit card statements appeared lower than this. MBNA told Miss P her account had a 0.25% cashback reward, and Miss P expressed concern that it appeared even a 0.25% cashback was not being correctly applied to her account. Miss P said she could find no literature detailing the amount of the cashback. MBNA considered Miss P’s concerns, but did not uphold her complaint. They paid Miss P £20 in relation to the time she had spent on the phone with them about the matter. Our Investigator looked into the case and concluded, on balance, there was nothing to suggest Miss P had been told that a higher cashback of 0.5% was part of the account, and MBNA’s calculations showed the 0.25% cashback had been correctly applied. The Investigator provided Miss P with samples of the application screenshots MBNA had provided and details of how the 0.25% cashback had been applied to her account to assure Miss P of the amounts paid. Miss P noted that MBNA ‘round down’ when applying the cashback and said this was unfair, particularly in comparison to other cards on the market. Miss P maintained that MBNA had not been clear in their communications about the cashback reward. To resolve things Miss P wants MBNA to acknowledge their communications about ‘rounding down’ were not clear, fair or prominent. And to apologise for their poor handling of her enquiry and complaint given the trouble caused. 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. I have only included a summary of what’s happened above, and while I may not respond to every point each party has raised, I have reviewed all the submissions available and focused on what I consider relevant to reaching a fair and reasonable resolution in this matter. To reach a fair and reasonable decision I have taken into account any relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and (where appropriate) what is considered to have been good industry practice at the relevant time.

-- 1 of 3 --

And in light of some of Miss P’s points, it may also help to add that it is not my role to fine or punish a firm, or to interfere with a firm’s systems, processes or controls – these are all considerations for the appropriate regulator. I think it reasonable to say Miss P’s complaint was at first driven by her concern that a cashback of 0.5% had not been applied to her account. And more recently Miss P has expressed her concern about how easy it was to find this information and to understand how MBNA’s cashback is calculated. While I have considered Miss P’s recollections as part of my review, it is not possible for me to now see exactly what Miss P saw when she first applied and took out the credit card. MBNA have provided sample screenshots of what Miss P would have seen. Where the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory I reach my decision on the balance of probabilities – which, in other words, means I’ve based it on what I think is more likely than not to have happened given the available evidence and the wider circumstances. The screenshots MBNA have provided do indicate that the percentage of cashback (0.25%) would have been presented prior to Miss P taking out the credit card, and it appears there was more likely than not a link provided to the additional terms and conditions for the rewards associated with the credit card. MBNA have also said a 0.5% cashback was not something they offered at the time, and having looked online I’ve not seen anything to persuade me otherwise. In the circumstances, I’ve not seen enough to suggest Miss P was led to believe before taking out the credit card that she would be receiving a 0.5% cashback as she has claimed. MBNA should provide clear, fair and not misleading information to their customers, and provide their customers with information at the right time to make an informed decision. I understand Miss P is particularly concerned that the terms of the rewards were not clear / transparent. Based on the available evidence and submissions that have been provided which include samples from the supplementary terms and conditions for the cashback reward, it does appear information was available to customers (and more likely than not to Miss P) during the application process which set out how and when the cashback would be calculated and paid, including reference to MBNA’s ‘rounding down’. I’ve not found any specific requirement for information about the rewards (which were not permanent features of the credit agreement) to have been part of the terms and conditions for the credit card agreement. And it does appear more likely than not that customers were signposted to the additional terms and conditions during the application process. I realise Miss P’s frustrations with what has happened, but for me to uphold this part of Miss P’s complaint I would need to find that MBNA have done something wrong or acted unfairly in some way, and overall in the circumstances of this case I’ve not seen enough to persuade me that they have. I’ve reviewed the breakdown of the 0.25% cashback payments made to Miss P’s account, and I have not seen anything to suggest the cashback payments have been unfairly applied. I also note Miss P has not queried this further following our service sharing details of how the cashback payments were calculated. I think it’s fair to say Miss P’s complaint has evolved into concerns about how clearly MBNA set out how the cashback is worked out and their general engagement to explain this to her. But as already set out above, I think the cashback terms were more likely than not available

-- 2 of 3 --

to Miss P through the application process which explained how the cashback was worked out. And Miss P’s statements have shown the running cashback balance each month. There was also no requirement that I am aware of for MBNA to have highlighted differences between their products and other providers’ products as Miss P believes should have happened. Or that they should provide the level of detail Miss P believes should’ve been available to her about how her cashback was calculated each month – the running cashback balance was available on her monthly statements to query (as Miss P went on to do) if she had any concerns. And how MBNA choose to operate their rewards (ie. the ‘rounding down’ methodology) is something for their commercial decision making and not something I can interfere with. This was explained in their supplementary terms and conditions about the credit card rewards. I note that MBNA have already paid Miss P £20 for the time she spent on calls to them while she was enquiring about her account. In the circumstances, there is a general expectation that comes with making enquiries and raising complaints that will cause inconvenience to an individual. And I don’t think the £20 MBNA have paid to cover Miss P’s call costs is unreasonable in the circumstances. My final decision I recognise this is not the outcome Miss P was looking for, but for the reasons above, my final decision is that Miss P’s complaint is not upheld. 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. Kristina Mathews Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --