Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-5726999

Complaint Mr P has complained about credit cards Barclays Bank UK PLC (trading as “Barclaycard”) provided to him. He says that the credit cards were unaffordable and caused ongoing difficulty. Background This complaint is about four credit cards and associated limit increases which Barclaycard provided to Mr P. The history of Mr P’s credit cards is as follows: Card A Date Event July 2002* Account opened with limit of £10,000.00 Card B Date Event September 2005* Account opened with limit of £6,000.00 December 2006* Limit increase to £7,000.00 September 2010*** Limit increase to £9,400.00 May 2011*** Limit increase to £11,800.00 Card C Date Event September 2007** Account opened with limit of £2,000.00 October 2008** Limit increase to £3,000.00 November 2010*** Limit increase to £4,500.00 Card D Date Event August 2008** Account opened with limit of £1,500.00 October 2010*** Limit increase to £3,000.00 May 2011*** Limit increase to £4,500.00 * Lending decision prior to the need for a lender to be regulated in order to provide credit. ** Lending decision post the need for a lender to be regulated, but prior to the Office of Fair Trading’s (“OFT”) publication of its Irresponsible Lending Guidance (“ILG”). *** Lending decision post the OFT’s publication of its ILG. In May 2025, Mr P complained saying that the credit cards and the limit increases Barclaycard provided to him were unaffordable and caused him ongoing difficulty as he found it difficult to make his payments.

-- 1 of 8 --

Barclaycard did not uphold Mr P’s complaint as it believed that he had complained too late. When responding to our request for its file on Mr P’s complaint, Barclaycard reiterated its view that Mr P had complained too late. One of our investigators reviewed what Mr P and Barclaycard had told us. And she thought Barclaycard hadn’t done anything wrong or treated Mr P unfairly in relation to providing the credit cards, or increasing Mr P’s credit limits on the occasions that it did. So she didn’t recommend that Mr P’s complaint be upheld. Mr P disagreed and asked for an ombudsman to look at the complaint. My findings I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Basis for my consideration of this complaint There are time limits for referring a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Barclaycard has argued that Mr P’s complaint about the decisions to provide the credit cards and the limit increases was made too late because he complained more than six years after these lending decisions; as well as more than three years after he ought reasonably to have been aware of his cause to make this complaint. Our investigator explained why Mr P’s complaint was one alleging that the relationship between him and Barclaycard was unfair to him as described in s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”). He also explained why this complaint about an allegedly unfair lending relationship had been made in time. Having carefully considered everything, I’ve decided not to uphold Mr P’s complaint. Given the reasons for this, I’m satisfied that whether Mr P’s complaint about the specific lending decisions was made in time or not has no impact on that outcome. I’m also in agreement with the investigator that Mr P’s complaint should be considered more broadly than just the lending decisions. I consider this to be the case as Mr P has not only complained not about the respective decisions to lend but has also alleged that this created unfair lending relationships as he found it difficult to make his payments. I’m therefore satisfied that Mr P’s complaint is a complaint alleging that the lending relationships between himself and Barclaycard were unfair to him. I acknowledge Barclaycard may not agree that we can look at Mr P’s complaint, but given the outcome I have reached, I do not consider it necessary for me to make any further comment, or reach any findings on these matters. In deciding what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of Mr P’s case, I am required to take relevant law into account. As, for the reasons I’ve explained above, I’m satisfied that Mr P’s complaint can be reasonably interpreted as being about the fairness of the lending relationship between him and Barclaycard, relevant law in this case includes s140A, s140B and s140C of the CCA. S140A says that a court may make an order under s140B if it determines that the relationship between the creditor (Barclaycard) and the debtor (Mr P), arising out of a credit agreement is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following, having regard to all matters it thinks relevant:

-- 2 of 8 --

• any of the terms of the agreement; • the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement; • any other thing done or not done by or on behalf of the creditor. Case law shows that a court assesses whether a relationship is unfair at the date of the hearing, or if the credit relationship ended before then, at the date it ended. That assessment has to be performed having regard to the whole history of the relationship. S140B sets out the types of orders a court can make where a credit relationship is found to be unfair – these are wide powers, including reducing the amount owed or requiring a refund, or to do or not do any particular thing. Given Mr P’s complaint, I therefore need to think about whether Barclaycard’s decisions to initially lend to Mr P, increase his credit limits on the occasions it did, or its later actions resulted in the lending relationships between Mr P and Barclaycard being unfair to Mr P, such that it ought to have acted to put right the unfairness – and if so whether it did enough to remove that unfairness. Mr P’s relationships with Barclaycard are therefore likely to be unfair if it lent contrary to the rules, regulations and expectations at the relevant times. And if this was the case, Barclaycard then didn’t somehow then remove the unfairness this created. I’ve considered Mr P’s complaint in this context. The expectations expected of Barclaycard when it agreed to provide these credit cards and the associated increases to Mr P We do have an explanation about how we handle complaints about unaffordable and irresponsible lending on our website. However, the vast majority of our website guidance covers regulated lending. So I think that the information on our website and our typical approach to lending complaints has only very limited, if any, relevance to Mr P’s complaint about the decision to provide the credit cards and all the increases bar the final five limit increases. Mr P applied for credit cards in July 2002, September 2005, September 2007 and August 2008. These decisions to lend not only predated the current regulator’s (the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”)) rules and guidance which came in, in April 2014, the first two cards were provided before the regulation of consumer credit and the second two cards were provided before the then regulator of consumer credit the OFT, published its ILG in March 2010. Prior to the regulation of consumer credit, while a number of lenders signed up to various voluntary codes, a lender wasn’t required to be regulated in order to provide credit. Therefore, the decisions Barclaycard made to offer Mr P all of his credit cards and the first limit increases on Card B and Card C1 all took place prior to the introduction of the main regulations and standards in relation to irresponsible and unaffordable lending. 1 As set out in the background section of this provisional decision, the decisions to provide Card A and Card B, as well as the first limit increase on it, all took place prior to it being a requirement for a lender to obtain a licence, from the OFT, in order to carry out consumer credit activities. While the decisions to provide Card C, Card D and the first limit increase on Card C took place after the requirement to hold a licence from the OFT came into force on 6 April 2007, these decisions took place before the OFT issued its main guidance on what constituted irresponsible lending.

-- 3 of 8 --

Indeed, irresponsible lending only became a nebulous concept when the 2006 revisions to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 came into force on 6 April 2007. Even then, the main guidance regarding this wasn’t introduced until the OFT published its ILG in March 2010. So it’s fair to say that all bar five of the lending decisions Mr P is complaining about took place prior to there being any sort of clear regulatory requirements in place on Barclaycard. That’s not to say that there weren’t any expectations or standards in relation to lending at the time it provided Mr P with his credit cards as well as the first limit increases Card B and Card C. As Mr P has said, in his communications with our investigators, there were some voluntary codes in place, such as the then British Bankers’ Association (“BBA”) Banking Code, which were in place at the time and represented good industry practice. However, it would be fair to say that its obligations and responsibilities were much more limited and they certainly were not the same as they are now. For example, the concepts of irresponsible lending, borrower focused assessments and proportionate checks were not part of the expectations or requirements at the time. Indeed, it’s fair to say that any checks were more concerned with a lender assessing the likelihood of it getting its money back rather than the impact of any repayments on the customer. What a subscriber to the banking code – such as Barclaycard here - agreed to do at the time of the above lending decisions, was assess whether it felt that a borrower would be able to repay any credit provided. I therefore need to consider Mr P’s complaint about the initial decisions to provide all of these cards as well as the first increases on Card B and Card C, in relation to the expectations that were in place on a lender at this time. Application to Mr P’s complaint – Bearing in mind the expectations at the time did Barclaycard act fairly and reasonably towards Mr P when agreeing to provide the credit cards and the credit limit increases that it did prior to March 2010? Barclaycard hasn’t been able to say much about the checks that it carried out at the time it accepted Mr P’s applications or increased his credit limits on the occasions that it did prior to the ILG being published in March 2010. Nonetheless, what’s important to note is that Mr P was provided with revolving credit facilities rather than loans. And this means that Barclaycard was required to understand whether credit limits of between £10,000.00 for Card A, credit limits of between £6,000.00 to £7,000.00 for Card B, a credit limits of between £2,000.00 and £3,000.00 for Card C and finally a credit limit of £1,500.00 for Card D, could all be repaid within a reasonable period of time. I understand and think it likely that Barclaycard carried out credit checks ahead of making these lending decisions. However, it hasn’t been able to provide any details on what it found out about Mr P as a result of the credit checks that it carried out before accepting Mr P’s initial applications for these cards, or offering the relevant limit increases. Given the most recent of these lending decisions took place over fifteen years ago and the earliest decision took place over twenty years ago, I simply wouldn’t expect a lender to have retained this information. Therefore, I’ve not drawn any adverse conclusions as a result of Barclaycard not being able to provide this information. In any event, I’m also mindful that I’ve not been provided with any information and neither has it even been argued, that Mr P had any significant adverse information – such as defaulted accounts or county court judgments (“CCJ”) recorded against him at the time he was provided with these credit cards or the first limit increases on Card B or Card C.

-- 4 of 8 --

Furthermore, Barclaycard clearly felt that Mr P could repay amounts of £10,000.00; £6,000.00 to £7,000.00; £2,000.00 to £3,000.00; and finally a credit limit of £1,500.00 within a reasonable period of time. As I’ve explained, it’s fair to say the limited guidance and standards in place during this time, were more geared to a lender taking steps to ensure it would get its money back rather than requiring a lender to understand how a borrower would make their payments. In these circumstances, I think it is unlikely that Barclaycard would have lent in circumstances where it didn’t consider that there was a reasonable chance of it being repaid any sums that it advanced. Given all of this, without anything to show that this clearly wasn’t the case, I’m not persuaded that it was unreasonable for Barclaycard to feel that Mr P could repay amounts of £10,000.00; £6,000.00 to £7,000.00; £2,000.00 to £3,000.00; and finally £1,500.00 within a reasonable period of time. As this is the case, I’m satisfied that it was not unfair for Barclaycard to have accepted Mr P’s application for these credit cards, or increase his credit limits on the first occasions that it did on Card B and Card C and therefore there was no unfairness created at these respective stages. The obligations owed by lenders at the time Barclaycard agreed to provide the final two limit increases on Card B, the final limit increase on Card C and all of the increases on Card D to Mr P Barclaycard’s decisions to increase Mr P’s credit limit on the final two occasions that it did on Card B, the final occasion it did on Card C and all the occasions that it did on Card D all took place after OFT’s publication of its ILG. It’s fair to say that the ILG set out that a lender was expected to carry out proportionate checks into a customer’s circumstances in order to reach a reasonable determination on whether they could repay any credit provided I understand that before providing these credit limit increases, Barclaycard will also have carried out credit checks. Once again, Barclaycard hasn’t been able to provide the results of these checks and I wouldn’t expect it to have retained this information given the length of time that has passed. Although there is still no suggestion of Mr P having any significant adverse information recorded against him at these stages. However, as Mr P was being provided with credit limits of £9,400.00, £11,800.00, £4,500.00, £3,000.00 and £4,500.00 and there was the prospect on this being owed concurrently, I think that such limits will have required fairly chunky monthly repayments, in order to repay what could have been owed within a reasonable period of time. To be clear, while a reasonable period of time wasn’t defined it was generally accepted that the typical term a fixed-sum loan for an equivalent amount would be taken over, provided a useful yardstick. Amounts of this much were typically repaid over terms up to seven years. In these circumstances, I would have expected Barclaycard to have found out more about Mr P’s income and expenditure, including information on his regular committed living costs, before offering to increase Mr P’s credit limit on the four occasions that it did after the introduction of the ILG. As Barclaycard hasn’t provided me with any indication that it did do this, let alone what the results showed, I don’t think that the checks it carried out before it increased Mr P’s credit limit on the final two occasions that it did on Card B, the final occasion it did on Card C and all the occasions that it did on Card D were reasonable and proportionate. I’ll now proceed to consider whether it is more likely than not that Barclaycard finding out more about Mr P’s circumstances, would have resulted in it taking a different decision to lend

-- 5 of 8 --

to him. Would further checks have made a difference to Barclaycard’s decisions to offer the five limit increases from March 2010 onwards Ordinarily, where a firm failed to carry out reasonable and proportionate checks before providing credit or significantly increasing the amount available to a customer, I’d usually go on to recreate reasonable and proportionate checks in order to get an indication of what such checks would more likely than not have shown. However, Mr P has been unable to provide us with information need to be able to assess what Barclaycard finding out more about his circumstances at the respective times is likely to have shown. Indeed, it wouldn’t be unfair to say that Mr P hasn’t really provided anything at all in support of his position at the time that Barclaycard was making its lending decisions. So I’ve not been provided with sufficient evidence to be able to ascertain Mr P’s income, or his committed expenditure, which is what I think that Barclaycard needed to find out about when offering these limit increases. I appreciate that Mr P may think that it is unreasonable and unfair to expect him to provide information which he doesn’t have and cannot reasonably be expected to have. But I also have to take into account that Barclaycard isn’t required to have retained all of this information either. Ultimately, it was Mr P that chose to make his complaint in May 2025. As this is the case, I have to decide the complaint on what I have before me. It is only fair and reasonable for me to uphold a complaint in circumstances where I can see that any additional credit provided was unaffordable. It’s very difficult for me to uphold a complaint on the basis of uncorroborated arguments regarding an individual’s circumstances. I’m afraid that I’ve not been provided with sufficient evidence which corroborates what Mr P has said about not being able to make the increased monthly payments required should he owe the full amount of the new credit limits. Furthermore, I can see that when Mr P did in contact to say that he was having difficulty making his repayments, Barclaycard took steps to help him by providing breathing spaces and payment plans. From what I’ve seen, all of these instances took place after these credit limit increases too. So I can’t say that Barclaycard increased Mr P’s credit limit after he’d already asked for help repaying what he owed either. It’s clear that Mr P feels strongly about his complaint and I do sympathise with the difficulties that he says he had making his repayments. I also accept that given the rules, guidance and standards in place today - in relation to a lender now needing to ensure that it does not lend irresponsibly rather than just considering the credit risk – it’s possible that Barclaycard might not take the same lending decisions today. However, as I explained earlier on in this decision, all I can do is consider whether Barclaycard lent contrary to any rules and regulations (where applicable) and expectations in place at the relevant times. Finding that a firm was required to do something that it wasn’t, or retrospectively applying rules that didn’t apply at the time, would not only result in a decision that is not fair and reasonable all the circumstances, such action would result in a decision that was unlawful. So I can’t view whether Barclaycard treated Mr P fairly and reasonably through the prism of today’s standards. Indeed, most of what Mr P has referred to, in support of his complaint, relates to irresponsible lending. And I’ve explained that this simply wasn’t a concept that Barclaycard would have had to have had regard to, when most of the lending decisions in this case were made. Even then, I’ve not been provided with anything that clearly

-- 6 of 8 --

demonstrates that Barclaycard did lend unfairly at the time of the later decisions. As this is the case, I’ve not been persuaded that Barclaycard acted unfairly or unreasonably when increasing Mr P’s credit limit either. Did Barclaycard act unfairly or unreasonably towards Mr P once it granted his credit limit increases? Mr P accepts that Barclaycard did provide him with assistance when he got in contact to explain that he was having difficulty making his payments. However, Mr P has said that Barclaycard still acted unfairly towards him as it shouldn’t have got to the position where he needed to ask for help, as Barclaycard ought to have carried out annual reviews and been aware of his difficult situation. In the first instance, I think that it would be helpful for me to explain that the type of annual review that Mr P has referred to – in relation to the Lending Code - is mainly concerned with an overdraft. A credit card account isn’t designed to be operated with a credit balance in the same that a current account is. So having a balance on a credit card isn’t necessarily a problem, in the same way that being continually overdrawn might be. And as a result, it certainly wouldn’t result in the type of hardcore borrowing referred to in the lending code. That said, the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) did introduce new rules regarding persistent debt on credit cards in 2018. The final stage of these rules came into operation in 2020. This permitted credit card providers to close a credit card to new spending where customers were not taking sufficient steps to reduce balances that were in persistent debt. Given Mr P’s reference to Barclaycard failing to review his account, I’ve considered whether Barclaycard had sufficient regard to these rules. In the first instance, it’s worth noting that that it doesn’t automatically follow that an individual who has had a balance towards the upper end of their credit limit will be in persistent debt. I say it because the definition of persistent debt is based on how much of the customer’s payments go towards interest and how much goes towards repaying the capital borrowed. As this is the case, it is perfectly possible for someone to remain at the upper end of their credit limit for the relevant period without ending up in persistent debt. Nonetheless, I can see that Mr P did enter into persistent debt. I’ve also seen that he was sent letters letting him know that this was the case and he was encouraged to get in touch if he needed any help. It also looks like there have been no new transactions on these accounts for some time and as a result Mr P was able to clear most of the balances by the time that he made his complaint. I appreciate that Mr P may feel that he will have owed less had Barclaycard not charged him interest. Indeed, it’s clear that Mr P is unhappy at having paid interest on his credit card. However, as Mr P’s credit cards were interest-bearing there isn’t anything in the payment of interest itself that mean that Mr ‘s complaint should be upheld. I’m also mindful that there isn’t anything to indicate that Mr P was mismanaging the accounts (other than the periods where he asked for and received help) so I don’t think that Barclaycard should have taken unilateral corrective action simply in order to avoid Mr P paying interest. Indeed, had Barclaycard taken such unilateral corrective action and defaulted these accounts, this would have been reported to credit reference agencies resulting in significant adverse consequences for Mr P. I don’t think that Barclaycard taking such action was warranted where Mr P wasn’t breaching the terms of his agreements. And with this in mind, I’ve not been persuaded that Barclaycard acted unfairly towards Mr P after it increased his credit limits either.

-- 7 of 8 --

Overall, and based on the available evidence I don’t find that Mr P’s relationships with Barclaycard were unfair. I’ve not been persuaded that Barclaycard created unfairness in its relationships with Mr P by irresponsibly lending to him whether when initially agreeing to provide him with credit cards, or in respect of offering credit limit increases on them. I don’t find Barclaycard treated Mr P unfairly in any other way either based on what I’ve seen. So while I can understand Mr P’s sentiments and appreciate why he is unhappy, I’m nonetheless not upholding this complaint. I appreciate this will be very disappointing for Mr P as it is clear that he feels strongly about his complaint. But I hope he’ll understand the reasons for my decision and that he’ll at least feel his concerns have been listened to. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I’m not upholding Mr P’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Jeshen Narayanan Ombudsman

-- 8 of 8 --