Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6220747

The complaint Mr B has complained that Barclays Bank UK PLC (“Barclays”) acted irresponsibly when it provided him with a personal loan in February 2025. Mr B is being represented by a professional representative For the sake of clarity when I refer to Mr B I mean both him and his representative. Background Mr B applied for a £25,000 personal loan with Barclays in February 2025. The term of the loan was 48 months and the monthly repayments were £599.78. Mr B has said that at the time he applied for the loan Barclays failed to complete sufficient checks or consider whether or not he might be vulnerable. Mr B has explained that at the time of application he was the victim of a scam and the loan repayments were both unaffordable and unsustainable for him. He’s asked that Barclays refund all interest and charges added to the loan, remove all negative markers associated with it from his credit file and pay him compensation for the distress caused by its lending decision. Barclays has said that at the time Mr B applied for the loan it completed an income and expenditure form with him, reviewed his existing credit commitments and credit file. Having done so it believed that the loan was both affordable and sustainable for him and so approved the application. As it didn’t think it was wrong to provide him with the loan it didn’t uphold his complaint. Mr B disagreed with Barclays findings so brought his complaint to this service. One of our investigators considered Mr B’s complaint already. He found that the checks completed by Barclays at the time of application were likely sufficient and there was nothing to indicate he might be vulnerable or unable to afford the repayments, so he didn’t uphold the complaint. Unhappy with the investigator’s findings Mr B requested a decision from an ombudsman, so the complaint has been passed to me. My findings 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. But I want to assure both parties that I’ve reviewed everything on file. And if I don’t comment on 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. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. Our general approach to complaints about unaffordable or irresponsible lending – including the key rules, guidance, and good industry practice – is set out on our website. The rules don’t set out any specific checks which must be completed to assess

-- 1 of 3 --

creditworthiness. But while it is down to the firm to decide what specific checks it wishes to carry out, these should be reasonable and proportionate to the type and amount of credit being provided, the length of the term, the frequency and amount of the repayments, the total cost of the credit and what it knew about the consumer at the time of application. Mr B has said that at the time of lending he was already struggling to meet his existing monthly repayments and was unable to afford the new credit commitment. He has provided his recent credit file and estimates of his monthly outgoings at the time. However, I note the credit file Mr B has provided is from February 2026, with limited information about his position the year before when the lending decision took place. Therefore, I’m unable to use the information on his current position to make a finding on what his position was likely to have been 12 months prior. I do note though that the credit file states there was no history or missed payments, arrears or defaults in February 2025, which aligns with what Barclays found at the time. Looking at the information from the time of application Mr B’s declared income was £3,300. Barclays verified this via TransUnion, which estimated Mr B’s likely income to be slightly lower, at £3,034, which is the amount it ultimately relied on. Mr B also told Barclays he was living at home with his parents and his monthly fixed outgoings and living costs were calculated to be approximately £809 per month. In addition, Mr B had £4,450 of existing debt and credit commitments which cost him roughly £185 per month to maintain. All of which left him with around £1,090 of disposable income every month, which was sufficient to cover the monthly loan repayments. Mr B has disputed the above figures but has not provided any evidence from the time to show they were incorrect. And Barclays was entitled to verify his income in the manner that it did and rely on the information provided to it by credit reference agencies such as TransUnion. So, I can’t say that the business was wrong to trust the information it was provided with at the time or that additional checks were required based on what it was told when Mr B applied for the loan. Which means that I think the lending decision made by Barclays was reasonable based on the information it was given directly by Mr B, as well and the information it gathered through the checks and verification it completed at the time. So, I can’t uphold his complaint on that basis. Mr B has also explained that he was the victim of a scam at the time and believes Barclays ought to have realised this and treated him as a vulnerable consumer. He has alluded to the fact that Barclays mentioned this issue in its final response letter to him in December 2025 as evidence that it was aware he was vulnerable and failed to treat him as such. I’ve read the letter Mr B is alluding to and don’t believe that it’s indicative of Barclays being aware in February 2025 that he was the victim of a scam. Instead, I think it was an acknowledgement of the fact that the came to light late last year when Mr B complained about it separately. And I’ve not seen anything in the application process or information provided to Barclays in February 2025 that ought to have alerted it that Mr B was vulnerable in that way. So, I can’t say it failed to identify him as vulnerable or failed to offer him appropriate support, which means I can’t uphold his complaint on that basis either. I’ve also considered whether Barclays acted unfairly or unreasonably in some other way, including whether its relationship with Mr B might have been viewed as unfair by a court under s.140A Consumer Credit Act 1974. However, for the same reasons I’ve set out above, I’ve not seen anything that makes me think this was likely to have been the case. My final decision For the reasons set out above I don’t uphold Mr B’s complaint against Barclays Bank UK

-- 2 of 3 --

PLC. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Karen Hanlon Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --