DRN-6320585

The complaint Mr J is unhappy that Barclays Bank UK PLC, trading as Barclaycard, incorrectly linked his personal data to that of another customer, which he believes affected his ability to obtain credit and caused him distress and inconvenience. What happened Mr J has held a number of financial products over many years. In 2014, he raised a concern with Barclaycard that his personal data had been incorrectly linked to another customer with a similar name. Mr J says he was assured at the time that this issue had been resolved. In early 2025, Mr J contacted Barclays in order to switch the rate on a buy-to-let mortgage. During this process, there were delays and additional identity checks, and Mr J was told that Barclays held more than one customer profile for him. He was subsequently informed that one of those profiles had been incorrectly linked to another customer who held a Barclaycard account. Following further investigation, Barclaycard accepted that Mr J had been wrongly linked to another customer due to errors in their internal systems. They explained that while the issue had previously been addressed, it re-occurred following a later data migration. Barclaycard confirmed that Mr J’s personal details, including his date of birth and contact information, had been incorrectly associated with the other customer’s record and that they had now removed those details to prevent the issue from happening again. Barclaycard also acknowledged that Mr J had previously applied for a Barclaycard and that this application was likely declined because their systems treated him as already holding a Barclaycard account, rather than because of any adverse credit information. Barclaycard confirmed that no adverse data relating to the other customer had been reported to credit reference agencies in Mr J’s name. On 13 May 2025, Barclaycard issued their final response. They upheld Mr J’s complaint, apologised for the error, and offered him £500 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. They also told Mr J that they had escalated the matter to their Data Privacy Team to review their processes. Mr J wasn’t satisfied with Barclaycard’s response and remained concerned that the error may not have been fully resolved and that it continued to affect his ability to obtain credit from Barclaycard. He therefore referred his complaint to this service, saying that he believed the £500 compensation offered by Barclaycard did not reflect the seriousness of the issue or its ongoing impact. 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. There is no dispute that Barclaycard made an error by incorrectly linking Mr J’s personal

-- 1 of 3 --

data to that of another customer. Barclaycard have accepted this, explained how it occurred, and taken steps to remove the incorrect link from their systems. They have also apologised and offered £500 compensation. I’m satisfied this was a failing on their part and that the error would have caused Mr J understandable upset, inconvenience and concern. I’ve thought carefully about the impact of this error on Mr J. Barclaycard accept that at least one Barclaycard application was likely declined because their internal systems treated Mr J as already holding a Barclaycard account. I accept that this would have been frustrating and upsetting, particularly given Mr J had previously been told the issue was resolved. I also accept that the re-emergence of the issue in 2025 would reasonably undermine Mr J’s confidence in Barclaycard’s handling of his personal data. However, I also need to consider the extent of the impact, based on the objective evidence available. Mr J has provided an up-to-date credit file, which shows no adverse information recorded in his name and no indication that data relating to the other customer was reported by Barclaycard to the credit reference agencies. The credit file also shows that Mr J has been able to obtain and maintain credit with a number of other lenders without difficulty. This tells me that the effects of the error were limited to Barclaycard’s internal systems and did not adversely affect Mr J’s credit standing more generally. Mr J has raised concerns about further unsuccessful attempts to obtain credit from Barclaycard, as well as multiple soft searches appearing on his credit file. While I understand why this has caused him concern, the presence of soft searches does not, by itself, show that incorrect information continues to be linked to his records, nor does it demonstrate that adverse data has been shared externally or used unfairly. Lenders are also entitled to assess applications in line with their own lending criteria, and a refusal of credit does not automatically mean that an earlier error continues to affect a customer. I’ve also considered Mr J’s point about the history of this issue, which first arose in 2014. From what I’ve seen, I feel it’s likely that error was addressed at the time, but I accept that the re-emergence of the issue in 2025, following a later system change, understandably added to Mr J’s frustration and concern. However, in considering what redress is fair, I’ve focused on the impact arising from that re-emergence. I haven’t seen evidence that the earlier error resulted in lasting or widespread financial harm that would justify a higher award in this case. I appreciate that Mr J remains concerned that Barclaycard may not have effectively disentangled his information from that of the other customer, and that future complications could arise. However, based on the evidence currently available, I think it’s reasonable to accept Barclaycard’s assurance that this matter has now been resolved. If any further issues arise in future, Mr J would be entitled to raise those as new and separate concerns with Barclaycard. Overall, I’m satisfied that Barclaycard’s mistake caused Mr J distress and inconvenience, but I feel that the impact was limited in scope and duration. Taking everything into account, I consider the £500 compensation Barclaycard have already offered to be fair and reasonable to reflect what Mr J has been through. As such, while I will be upholding this complaint, I’ll only be doing so to formally instruct Barclaycard to make the £500 payment they’ve already offered to make, and I won’t be asking them to do anything further. I realise this won’t be the outcome Mr J wanted, but I hope he will understand, given all that I’ve explained, why I’ve made the final decision that I have.

-- 2 of 3 --

Putting things right Barclaycard must pay £500 to Mr J. My final decision Your text here Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr J to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Paul Cooper Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --