Santander UK Plc · DRN-6228276

The complaint Mr A complains Santander UK Plc withdrew his overdraft facility and recorded adverse information on his credit file. What happened The background to this complaint is well known to both parties, so I won’t repeat it at length here. As a summary, Mr A held a current account with Santander, which included an arranged overdraft. In October 2025, Santander closed Mr A’s current account, meaning the overdraft became repayable in full. Mr A consequently complained, he said Santander never made him aware it may remove the overdraft or close his account. Santander said it placed a mail block on Mr A’s account in February 2023, at his request. It says Mr A’s account was referred to its financial support team in June 2025, due to the lack of credits into the account while the overdraft was being used. Santander says it traced Mr A’s address in August 2025 and wrote to him, however, didn’t receive a response. As a result, Santander doesn’t agree it’s done anything wrong. It says the account wasn’t maintained as expected and not hearing from Mr A in relation to the account was reasonable to close the account. Since demanding repayment of the overdraft, Santander says it has agreed a payment plan with Mr A and this is what it’s reporting to credit reference agencies (CRA’s). Unhappy with Santander’s response, Mr A referred his concerns to the Financial Ombudsman. One of our Investigator’s looked into what happened and thought Santander was reasonable in its actions, do didn’t recommend it do anything differently. Mr A disagreed with our Investigator’s opinion. He said not receiving correspondence wasn’t due to his failure to keep his contact details such as address and mobile number up to date. He said he’d received other statements from Santander during this period. Mr A also said the information Santander was reporting to CRA’s was incorrect and his mental health had been affected. As the matter wasn’t resolved, the complaint has been 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. I want to acknowledge that I’ve summarised the events of the complaint. I don’t intend any discourtesy by this – it just reflects the informal nature of our service. I want to assure Mr A and Santander that I’ve reviewed everything on file, alongside taking into consideration the relevant rules and regulations applicable to this complaint. And if I don’t comment on

-- 1 of 3 --

something, it’s not because I haven’t considered it. It’s because I’ve concentrated on what I think are the key issues. Our powers allow me to do this. Having taken everything into consideration, I’ve reached the same conclusion as our Investigator for broadly the same reasons. I appreciate this is unlikely to be the answer Mr A is hoping for, however I won’t be directing Santander to do anything differently in relation to this complaint. I’ve started by reviewing Mr A’s concerns about Santander’s decision to remove his overdraft facility. The terms of the agreement, set out that Santander can “change your overdraft limit at any time… This means we can ask you to pay back some or all of the money you borrow at any time”. So, on this basis it would appear Santander was reasonable in its decision to withdraw Mr A’s overdraft and did so in line with the terms of the account. I have however taken on board Mr A’s concerns that Santander didn’t clearly communicate that it was intending to do this and had it done so, he could have avoided the removal of his overdraft. Santander placed a mail block on Mr A’s account at his request in February 2023. So, while I appreciate Mr A says he received correspondence from Santander after that, from the information he’s provided, this appears to relate to different accounts and not the one subject to this complaint. Following this, it appears a block was placed on Mr A’s full profile with Santander in December 2024, after mail was returned, having been unsuccessfully delivered. So, at this point, Santander wasn’t confident it held the correct address for Mr A. Santander then tried to reach Mr A in August 2025 to confirm his address, however, didn’t hear back. As Santander had concerns about providing the overdraft facility and hadn’t been able to confirm Mr A’s address, I don’t then find it was unreasonable in its decision to remove the overdraft facility when it did. Following this, Mr A agreed a payment plan with Santander to repay the outstanding overdraft balance. As the overdraft was payable on demand, I don’t then find Santander is unreasonable to record to CRA’s that Mr A is an arrangement to pay, until the outstanding balance is settled. I appreciate Mr A says he was struggling with his mental health at the time and I’m sorry to hear of the challenges he’s faced. However, I haven’t found Santander made an error in agreeing the payment plan to repay the overdraft. I would note that each CRA may choose to interpret how it displays the information it’s provided by lenders such as Santander. This isn’t something I’m able to comment on in this complaint, as I’m looking at the actions of Santander solely. And in doing so, I’ve found the information Santander has reported to the CRA’s is a fair reflection of Mr A’s account. So, I don’t find it must then amend this. As a result, while I realise this may be disappointing to Mr A, I don’t think Santander made an error in removing his overdraft facility or how it’s reported the account to CRAs. So, I won’t be directing it do anything further in relation to this complaint. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, I don’t uphold this complaint

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Christopher Convery Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --