TSB Bank plc · DRN-6232320

The complaint Mr A is unhappy with how TSB Bank plc engaged with him in relation to his credit card payments. What happened In September 2023 Mr A raised his concerns with TSB about the direct debit (DD) for his credit card and that it was not functioning correctly to collect the full balance. TSB issued Mr A with a letter dated 13 September 2023 confirming that a DD would be set up to take effect from his next statement. The DD collected payment on 12 October 2023. The following month Mr A made manual payments to the account (on 24 October 2023 and 7 November 2023). Because of this the DD due to be collected on 9 November 2023 did not collect a payment. A separate manual payment of £1,270.95 on 1 November 2023 did not reach Mr A’s credit card account, but TSB returned it to Mr A’s TSB current account on 6 November 2023. A different TSB department later returned the same amount to Mr A’s current account on 7 November 2023. On realising this, TSB, on 8 November 2023, removed the original returned payment to ensure it had not been returned to Mr A twice. TSB’s review of what had happened with Mr A’s account recognised they could have been clearer with Mr A about the DD in place and Mr A’s payments to his credit card account. TSB paid Mr A £75 to recognise their shortcomings. The next month the DD was due to be collected on 11 December 2023, and it did this. The 17 December 2023 statement set out that the next payment was due on 11 January 2024, however a manual payment was made to the account on 18 December 2023 which meant the DD did not need to collect a payment on 11 January 2024. The statement dated 15 January 2024 was due to be collected by DD on 9 February 2024, however this was not collected and no manual payment was made. Mr A’s DD was cancelled on 24 January 2024 and TSB sent Mr A a letter dated 25 January 2024 noting a new DD had been set up, but that it wouldn’t take effect until the following month. Mr A’s card was blocked from 16 February 2024 due to non-payment. Mr A discovered the block and engaged with TSB about it on 17 February 2024 and 19 February 2024. The block was removed on 22 February 2024 – the same day as a payment of £60.21 was made to the credit card account (which was the outstanding minimum payment due).

-- 1 of 6 --

Mr A raised concerns about the ongoing problems he was experiencing with TSB and on 20 February 2024 TSB said they would look into things, but this did not happen. Mr A has described facing further problems with TSB after February 2024. Since this matter has been with our service our Investigator has sought to clarify the scope of Mr A’s complaint and most recently set out that this case is concerned with events leading up to 20 February 2024. The Investigator explained that any further problems Mr A has experienced with TSB after February 2024 should be raised as new, separate issues for TSB to consider. During their investigation the Investigator approached TSB about events post November 2023 until February 2024. TSB accepted it was not possible for them to now know what had happened with the payment that was missed on 9 February 2024 as they could not locate any records of what Mr A may have been told in January 2024 when the DD was cancelled. To recognise there were possible shortcomings on their part in relation to this, TSB offered £200 to Mr A and to ensure there was no impact to Mr A’s credit file for that particular payment. Our Investigator concluded the overall offer from TSB – the earlier £75 already paid, together with the £200 more recently offered – was fair and reasonable to recognise the shortcomings in TSB’s service to Mr A during the period in question. The Investigator also noted that across the months in question (from September 2023 until February 2024) Mr A had only been charged interest on 18 February 2024, which was £27.21, and this was refunded to Mr A on 19 February 2024. Our Investigator therefore did not see that Mr A had been made financially worse off in this regard. Mr A strongly disagreed with the Investigator’s conclusions and provided a detailed response. In summary, Mr A’s submissions are that TSB are the root cause of the problems he has experienced with making payment to his credit card account, noting in particular failings with the DD, sending a payment to the wrong place, blocking his card, being told to make manual payments and not properly engaging with him. Mr A has described how this has all caused him much inconvenience with numerous visits to branches and calls with TSB to try and sort things out. 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 have only included a summary of what has happened above and while I may not respond to every point either party has raised I have reviewed all the submissions available and focused on what I consider relevant to reaching a fair and reasonable resolution in this matter. To reach a fair and reasonable decision I have taken into account any relevant law and regulations, regulator’s rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and (where appropriate) what is considered to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. For the avoidance of doubt it is not my role to fine or punish a firm, or to interfere with a firm’s systems, processes or controls – these are all considerations for the appropriate regulator.

-- 2 of 6 --

Having reviewed the case I’ve reached the same outcome as our Investigator for broadly the same reasons. This includes that my authority to consider this complaint is limited to events between September 2023 until 20 February 2024. I am mindful that much has gone on between TSB and Mr A during the period this decision covers. I have considered Mr A’s detailed chronology of events together with the evidence TSB have been able to provide, but as I am sure both parties can appreciate I was not a party to everything that happened. When the evidence is incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory I have made my decision on the balance of probabilities – which, in other words, means I have based it on what I think is more likely than not to have happened given the available evidence and the wider circumstances. I think at the heart of this matter are Mr A’s frustrations with how TSB have engaged with him. I think it fair to say Mr A is also seeking specific answers to what happened with the DD, certain payments and why TSB were not engaging with him to solve the problems he was having making payments to his account. Mr A has said he lost confidence in TSB. I have noted Mr A’s concern that TSB have used their complaint handling processes to be obstructive in the course of these events, but while I can consider how TSB have engaged with Mr A about sorting out the problems with his payments and credit card in the course of considering his complaint – as confirmed by the earlier Ombudsman’s decision – sometimes complaint points may stretch beyond this, such as Mr A’s complaints about TSB’s wider complaint handling processes which are not something I’m able to look at. Relevant case law, Mazarona Properties Ltd v Financial Ombudsman Service [2017] EWHC 1135 sets out that a complaint about complaint handling is not a complaint about a ‘financial service’ so it falls outside this service’s jurisdictions. I have first tried to understand what happened with the DD payments Mr A was struggling with. TSB have not been able to get to the bottom of this and they’ve said there were no particular system issues affecting things. I’ve considered what TSB have said together with Mr A’s statements and that Mr A has said TSB told him to make manual payments towards the account. Having done so, it is difficult for me to know what happened here. What is possible for me to see is that Mr A’s DD was set up in September 2023 to collect the full outstanding balance on his account each month. As I set out above, the DD did not collect the full amount in the months where Mr A had already made a manual payment to the account. This is because in the months where the manual payments were made clearing the monthly balance at that time, there was therefore no need for the DD to collect any payment. And on other occasions the DD collected the required balance in full as expected. It is unclear what exactly happened in January 2024. Mr A says he was still experiencing problems with the DD and approached TSB to help sort out the problem. There are limited records available from this time, but there is some suggestion the DD was cancelled to re- set it and resolve the issues Mr A says he was experiencing. As this was done in late January 2024 it meant the DD would not be in place to collect the payment due on 9 February 2024. So to allow time for the DD to take effect, a manual payment was needed. However, TSB accept they cannot be sure if this was made clear to Mr A at the time, and so the 9 February 2024 payment was missed.

-- 3 of 6 --

The new DD set up in late January 2024 did take effect as it collected payment on 14 March 2024 as intended (which included the outstanding balances for February 2024 and March 2024’s billing cycles). I realise Mr A feels strongly about problems he has had with his DD from September 2023 onwards, but taking the above into account it seems, on balance, for the most part it was working as expected. The DD was set up in September 2023 and again in January 2024 to collect the full statement balance. The occasions where it didn’t do this were due to manual payments being made before the DD was due to collect payment, and when the DD was re- set in late January 2024, and so it was not in place in time to collect payment the following month – which would not be unusual. In the absence of anything to persuade me otherwise, it is therefore difficult for me to say the DD was not doing what it needed to do. I’ve next considered the transaction for £1,270.95 that did not reach Mr A’s credit card account on 1 November 2023. TSB recognise that the payment was misdirected to their loans department. From the available evidence and submissions, it is not clear to me why this happened, but there is some suggestion Mr A may have been given wrong information as to where to send the payment or it was processed incorrectly by TSB. Either way, TSB have recognised shortcomings on their part and the funds were returned to Mr A once the error was highlighted. Having looked at Mr A’s statements it is apparent TSB returned these funds twice to Mr A. It seems this is because TSB first returned them once the problem came to light, and then TSB’s loan department returned them as well. I don’t think it was unreasonable of TSB to return the funds once they realised what had happened, or that once their loans department returned the funds via their processes that one of the refunds was removed. Although I can see how confusing and unhelpful this may have been to Mr A, I’m not persuaded there is anything more for TSB to do here. I realise the mis-directed payment would not have helped build Mr A’s confidence in TSB. And I think it is fair to say the issue with re-setting the DD in January 2024 and the payment due on 9 February 2024 being missed compounded this, particularly as the missed payment led to TSB blocking Mr A’s card. Given what TSB knew about the problems Mr A had said he was experiencing with making payments to his credit card, it is disappointing that TSB blocked Mr A’s card at that point. Doing this put Mr A to the trouble of having to further engage with TSB to sort out the problem. Mr A has described the inconvenience of engaging with the TSB branch and having to speak to TSB’s credit card financial support team on the phone. And he has referenced the timing of the block was particularly inconvenient to him given he was in the process of making some larger purchases and he wished to ensure he had the protection afforded to him via Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by making purchases using his credit card. The card was blocked on 16 February 2024 and there is a record that Mr A contacted TSB about this on 17 February 2024. TSB’s notes record that they offered to take a manual payment from Mr A at that time, but Mr A declined to do this on that day. In any event, as noted earlier, the minimum payment due was made on 22 February 2024 and TSB have said the account was then unblocked. I assure Mr A I have taken everything into account. I’ve also considered that Mr A’s statements did set out each month what needed to be paid and by when, so there was

-- 4 of 6 --

information available to him about his account, but I note TSB accept they may not have been clear enough with Mr A that he needed to make a payment on 9 February 2024 because his DD would not be in place yet, and the non-payment is what led to the card being blocked. I understand Mr A visited the branch to seek reassurance that his statements were reconciling correctly. It’s not clear what was discussed at branch, although I note Mr A says branch staff seemed unable to alleviate his concerns themselves as he says they could not determine what was happening with his statements. However, as our Investigator noted and as I’ve mentioned above, for the most part payments were made to the account clearing the outstanding balance for the respective billing period, so no interest was applied to Mr A’s account. And the interest that was applied in February 2024 due to the confusion about making payment for that month, was quickly credited back to Mr A. So I’ve not seen anything to suggest Mr A has been put in a worse off financial position here. Lastly Mr A has made submissions in relation to the call with TSB on 19 February 2024 and that he was told, amongst other things, to drop his complaint or his account would be further suspended. I have listened to the call, but I’ve not found that to be the case. But it is apparent the call was not easy at times. Mr A explained he had been told by the branch to call TSB in order to get his card unblocked and any interest refunded, while the TSB call handler explained there was no such instruction to action all of this on their case notes as Mr A says had been promised by the branch that there would be. It is possible to see how this would have been frustrating for Mr A as it seems more likely than not there were communication failings on TSB’s part. The call handler did what they could at the time as they ensured Mr A’s complaint would be reopened so that it would be possible to find out what had happened in relation to his card being blocked. Taking everything into account I realise Mr A is frustrated with TSB and I can see that his intention has always been to ensure he clears his credit card each month. I think it’s fair to say Mr A has been seeking answers to better understand how the events described ended up happening and expressed concerns about how TSB operates, but as I’ve noted above it is not possible to know what exactly happened here at times, and as I’ve explained I’m unable to interfere or comment on TSB’s systems, controls or processes. It doesn’t appear Mr A has incurred a financial loss in relation to his credit card account – the statement balances were cleared in full each month as Mr A intended so no interest or charges were applied, and the interest that was applied in February 2024 was immediately refunded. But I think it’s fair to say Mr A’s dealings with TSB during this time caused him a level of inconvenience and upset while he tried to sort out the problems he was having with them. Where something has gone wrong, it is difficult to put a price on how it has impacted someone – it is not an exact science. And it is generally accepted that there is a level of inconvenience associated with sorting out such problems. I recognise Mr A feels strongly about his experience with TSB, and so I realise my findings will come as a disappointment to him, but overall I think the total compensation sum of £275 is not unreasonable in the circumstances, together with TSB’s assurance of no impact to Mr A’s credit file for the missed payment of February 2024.

-- 5 of 6 --

Putting things right It is my understanding that TSB Bank plc have already paid Mr A £75, so they should now pay Mr A £200 and ensure there is no missed payment marker for February 2024. If TSB Bank plc have not already paid Mr A the £75, then this should also be paid to him. My final decision For the reasons above, my final decision is that Mr A’s complaint is upheld and TSB Bank plc should put things right as I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Kristina Mathews Ombudsman

-- 6 of 6 --