Vanquis Bank Limited · DRN-6045005

The complaint Mr E complains Vanquis Bank Limited (Vanquis) failed to follow his request to cancel a recurring payment. What happened Mr E called Vanquis on 7 April 2025 to instruct it to cancel a recurring payment to his gym. He was told it would be cancelled. However, Vanquis wrote a letter to him on the same day confirming it could not cancel the payment because it was not set up as recurring. This meant a payment was taken for the gym the following day. Therefore, Mr E complained to Vanquis about the payment being taken as he understood it would be cancelled. There was correspondence about the complaint and Vanquis issued its final response on 14 May 2025. It said it couldn’t have done things differently in the circumstances. Nevertheless, in its submissions to our service Vanquis agreed Mr E hadn’t been given the correct information about the cancellation of the transaction. Overall, it offered to refund the transaction and interest accrued as well as pay £150 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience. Our Investigator looked into things and explained why she felt the complaint should be upheld. She explained why she felt Vanquis’ offer was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Mr E didn’t agree. He felt compensation of £500 would more appropriately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to him. He said there were many opportunities for Vanquis to put things right, but further time has been wasted. He doesn’t believe £150 compensation is sufficient to reflect the time, effort and emotional strain he endured trying to resolve the issue. Mr E has also said he didn’t have access to the Vanquis app at a time when he needed transparency. He said this lack of transparency was inconsistent with the Consumer Duty. However, he lost access to the app in December 2025, and he initially referred his complaint to us in May 2025. I’m satisfied it would now be inappropriate for me to expand the scope of the investigation in respect of this particular point. Vanquis accepted our Investigator’s findings. As Mr E didn’t agree, 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 thank Mr E for the time he has taken to provide his submissions to our service. I have considered everything he has said. I want to provide assurance that where a particular point has not been mentioned, it is not because it hasn’t been considered but because I don’t think I need to comment on it to reach the right outcome here. I have focused on the key reasons for the decision I have reached.

-- 1 of 3 --

All parties have now accepted something went wrong here and that Vanquis ought to have cancelled the payment as requested by Mr E. As a result of this, a payment of £23.09 was taken on 8 April 2025 which shouldn’t have been. This has now been accepted by both parties. I also agree. However, the point which remains disputed is how things should be put right and so I will focus the rest of my decision on this. Mr E remains unhappy with the amount of compensation and feels it should be higher to reflect the distress and inconvenience he has experienced. He has explained he made several proposals to fairly settle the complaint. He feels these were early and reasonable attempts to resolve the matter long before escalation was necessary. He has also explained the time Vanquis has taken to respond to our requests for information has prolonged the uncertainty. I understand Mr E feels very strongly about his complaint and the impact it has caused him. Nevertheless, I’m satisfied £150 is reasonable in all the circumstances of this complaint. I appreciate Mr E has spent time pursuing his complaint and I also acknowledge the inconvenience this has caused him. Additionally, I know it will be disappointing that Vanquis didn’t accept his offers or that the complaint wasn’t resolved sooner. It isn’t unusual for investigations to take a bit of time particularly where further information is needed. I can see there were times when our service was waiting for a response from Vanquis. Therefore, I can understand Mr E’s comments that this prolonged the uncertainty for him. Nevertheless, in all of the circumstances of this complaint including the value of the sums involved and the overall impact, I’m content £150 is fair and reasonable. Moreover, I appreciate Mr E is concerned about the financial information reported on his credit file and the balance wasn’t correct due to the unauthorised payment which was taken. Mr E has said he didn’t intend to make payments towards his account whilst it was disputed and whilst inaccurate balance information was reported. So, Mr E missed the payments in September 2025, October 2025 and November 2025. I appreciate Mr E has explained that regardless of the amount of money in dispute, the balance being reported was not accurate. He feels there is no regulatory or legal basis for adverse reporting or enforcement on the grounds that an inaccuracy is small. He explained credit reference agency (CRA) reporting must be accurate and not misleading, firms must treat consumers fairly and UK GDPR requires personal data to be accurate and kept up to date. He’s also made reference to the rules set out by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in its specialist sourcebook ‘CONC’. I understand Mr E’s position here and I’ve given careful consideration to the relevant rules and regulations. When acknowledging Mr E’s complaint, I can see Vanquis explained he needed to continue making the contractual payments and that it might affect his credit file if he didn’t. I’m mindful the transaction disputed here only made up a small proportion of the overall balance, so I don’t think it was unreasonable for Vanquis to expect the contractual payments to be made. I appreciate Mr E had made offers to settle the complaint and these weren’t accepted by Vanquis. However, I’m not persuaded this meant it was unreasonable for Vanquis to expect him to meet the contractual payments. For these reasons, I think it was fair and reasonable for Vanquis to have reported the missed payments on his credit file. After three missed payments, it was also reasonable for Vanquis to have sent a default notice. Overall, Vanquis didn’t cancel the recurring payment at Mr E’s request, and this caused Mr E distress and inconvenience as he sought to resolve the matter. However, I can’t conclude more than £150 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances.

-- 2 of 3 --

Putting things right Vanquis Bank Limited should put the account into the position it would have been had the transaction not occurred by refunding the transaction and any associated interest and charges. I understand Vanquis have already carried this out following our Investigator’s view, but if it hasn’t then it should do so. Further to this and to put things right, Vanquis Bank Limited should pay Mr E £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. I’m satisfied this is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the complaint. My final decision For the reasons outlined above, I’m upholding this complaint and Vanquis Bank Limited should put things right in the way directed above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Laura Dean Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --