Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6045024

The complaint Mr O is complaining that Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Barclaycard (Barclays) unfairly defaulted his account. What happened Mr O took out a credit card with Barclays. He fell into arrears on the account in early 2025 and the account was defaulted in September 2025. Mr O contacted Barclays in June 2025 to let it know he was struggling both with his mental health and financial situation. In response Barclays suspended interest on his account for 30 days and asked him to complete an income and expenditure form, so a decision about the best way forward could be made. It says it made Mr O aware that he needed to contact it before the 30 days ended if he still needed support with the account. Barclays said if it didn’t hear from Mr O in that time, it would continue to charge interest on the sums borrowed. Barclays called Mr O in July 2025 to discuss the arrears on the account, but it says he told it he didn’t have time to talk to them, so it extended the interest free period for 7 days on the understanding that Mr O would call back the following Friday. When it didn’t hear anything further from Mr O it resumed charging interest on the account. Mr O continued to struggle to make payments and after five months of arrears had accrued on the account, Barclays issued a default notice. Mr O was unable to bring his payments up to date by the given deadline, so, Barclays registered a default. Mr O has explained he was unwell at the time. Given his vulnerabilities and that he had engaged with Barclays, Mr O doesn’t think it’s fair for Barclays to register a default against him. He’s said it failed to take into account his vulnerability when registering the default and this is now causing him difficulties. In October 2025 Mr O complained to Barclays about the default. Barclays responded saying that it had tried to contact Mr O about the account and hadn’t received any response. So, it didn’t think it had acted unfairly. It explained it had a duty to accurately report what had happened on the account so it wouldn’t be removing the default. Unhappy with this response, Mr O referred the case to this service. One of our investigators considered the case but didn’t agree that Barclays had acted unfairly and so didn’t ask it to do anything further. Mr O was unhappy that our investigator hadn’t recommended the default be removed and felt Barclays had failed to treat him fairly given his situation and his vulnerabilities. So, he asked for a decision – and the complaint’s been passed to me. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and

-- 1 of 3 --

reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I think it would be helpful to set out here that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) says when a consumer is at least three months behind with their payments then a default may be registered. By September 2025 Mr O had been unable to make the contractual monthly repayments for more than three months. So, I think Barclays was acting in line with the ICO guidance, when it defaulted his account. I can see Barclays engaged with Mr O about his circumstances. It provided breathing space for Mr O by suspending interest and asked him to go through his income and expenditure on the phone. When he was unable to do this it sent him a form to complete. This was done so Barclays could understand what an affordable repayment plan might look like if one was needed, or if a payment plan wasn’t affordable what the next steps might be. I don’t think this was unreasonable as a way to ensure Barclays is providing the right support to its customers. Unfortunately, Mr O didn’t complete an income and expenditure with Barclays, so it was unable to take things further or establish what the next steps should be after the 30 day interest suspension ended. I can see Barclays regularly made Mr O aware of the position of the account, offering support, providing details of independent debt advice charities and letting him know what might happen if payment to the account wasn’t made. It also gave him the required notice before the account was defaulted. It's clear that Mr O was having a difficult time, so I’ve thought about whether Barclays treated him fairly given what it knew about his circumstances. I’ve carefully considered what Mr O has said and I’m truly sorry to hear of the difficult circumstances he has found himself in. This service expects a business to treat customers who are experiencing difficulties positively and sympathetically. In this case, I can see that Barclays wrote to Mr O about the arrears, provided a reasonable level of forbearance taking into consideration the contact it received from Mr O and the information he provided about his income and expenditure. Barclays offered him support and signposted him to agencies who could provide help. All of this is in line with what this service would expect to see, taking into account all the relevant regulations. Unfortunately, as Mr O didn’t get in touch with Barclays to set up a repayment plan and was unable to make further payments to the account, the account defaulted. I can understand that Mr O feels it’s unfair to default the account given his vulnerabilities, but I have to consider that Barclays wasn’t under an obligation to provide the account on an interest or fee free basis indefinitely, even taking into account Mr O’s vulnerabilities. So, Mr O would likely have continued to accrue interest on the account that he couldn’t afford. Applying the default meant that no further interest or charges accrued and Mr O’s debt didn’t increase. So, I think defaulting the account was the fair thing to do given Mr O was unable to maintain payments or agree a repayment plan. In addition, Barclays is obliged to report accurate information to the credit reference agencies, this applies even where a customer is vulnerable. I understand why Mr O is unhappy, but on the evidence available, I can’t reasonably say that Barclays shouldn’t have defaulted the account. I also think Barclays offered Mr O the support we would expect given the circumstances and Mr O’s vulnerability. Mr O wants the default removed from his account – and I don’t doubt how strongly he feels about this or the impact he says it’s having. But, as I’ve explained, I think Barclays have acted fairly given his circumstances. Barclays gave Mr O breathing space given his situation and an opportunity to come to a payment arrangement. It gave notice that the account would

-- 2 of 3 --

default, and I can’t see that Mr O was in a position to get the account back on track or agree an affordable repayment plan to avoid the default. I do understand why Mr O is unhappy but based on the evidence available, I can’t fairly say Barclays has acted unreasonably and should remove the default. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr O’s complaint about Barclays Bank UK PLC trading as Barclaycard for the reasons I’ve set out. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr O to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Charlotte Roberts Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --