DRN-6281808

The complaint Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money (Virgin Money) provided Mrs G with a credit card around January 2023. It had a credit limit of £3,500. Mrs G says the credit was provided irresponsibly. What happened The details of this complaint are well-known to both parties, so I won’t repeat them again here. The facts aren’t in dispute, so I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my decision. 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. 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 G’s complaint. I’ve decided the credit was provided fairly because: • I think the checks Virgin Money did before providing the credit were reasonable and proportionate given the credit limit they offered and what they knew about Mrs G’s financial situation. • I’m satisfied Virgin Money took reasonable steps to determine Mrs G’s income and outgoings. They validated her income using a credit reference agency (CRA) check. They checked Mrs G’s credit commitments using a CRA which also showed she was managing her active accounts with no signs of adverse information such as arrears, defaults or county court judgments. And they considered what Mrs G’s most likely monthly household expenditure would be. • While the ability to repay credit without issue doesn’t mean that there isn’t financial distress. A good repayment history is a fairly reliable indicator that an individual can manage debt responsibly. • So, I’m satisfied the checks Virgin Money did were reasonable and proportionate for the type and amount of credit they were providing. And I don’t think that there was anything immediately obvious in the information that Virgin Money had which meant they shouldn’t rely on it. So, I don’t think Virgin Money needed to have asked Mrs G to provide further evidence in support of her expenditure before providing her with a credit facility in this instance. • Based on the information Virgin Money gathered and what they knew about Mrs G’s circumstances, there was nothing to suggest Mrs G was unlikely to be able to sustainably repay what she was being lent. As based on these checks Mrs G should have had sufficient disposable income to sustain the repayments.

-- 1 of 2 --

• I don’t think Virgin Money acted unfairly in any other way. This means I don’t think Virgin Money did anything wrong when they provided the credit card to Mrs G. I’ve also considered whether the relationship might have been unfair under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, for the reasons I’ve already given, I don’t think Virgin Money lent irresponsibly to Mrs G or otherwise treated her unfairly. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that s.140A or anything else would, given the facts of this complaint, lead to a different outcome here. I know this isn’t the outcome Mrs G hoped for. But for the reasons above, I’m not asking Virgin Money to do anything differently here. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs G to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Anne Scarr Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --