Zilch Technology Limited · DRN-6160749

The complaint Miss A complains that Zilch Technology Limited held her responsible for payments made from a credit card she says she didn’t take out. The background to this complaint is well known to both parties. So, if there’s a submission I’ve not addressed; it isn’t because I’ve ignored the point. It’s simply because my findings focus on what I consider to be the central issues in this complaint – that being whether Zilch has fairly held Miss A responsible for the credit card application and the entries on her credit file. 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. Having done so, I agree with the conclusions reached by our Investigator, and for largely the same reasons. In summary, Zilch says that the application was made by Miss A because it was provided with a video selfie and Identification that satisfied its checks that it was Miss A who applied for the card. Miss A said that it was her sibling her took out the credit card in August 2024. She says she moved out of her previous address (family home) in April 2024 (which was the address used on the application). She also said (and provided evidence) that it was her sibling’s phone number and e-mail address that was used on the application as well. I’ve assessed all of the evidence provided by both sides. Having done so, I’m satisfied – on balance – that it wasn’t Miss A who likely took out the credit card. I’ve reviewed the video selfie that was used during the application process and compared that to the selfie Miss A has provided of herself. Having done so, I don’t think that it was Miss A who supplied the video selfie. I’m satisfied they are not the same person. There’s also the additional evidence on the application form. I’m satisfied that Miss A has provided evidence she no longer lives at the previous address used on the application form and that it’s more likely than not her sibling/s e-mail and contact number used on the same application as the Investigator has outlined. It also appears that this isn’t the first time the sibling has applied for lending in Miss A’s name with another provider accepting that Miss A had been the victim of Identity theft for an application made around the same time as this credit card. And when Miss A was made aware of an outstanding debt via the negative entries on her credit file she has shown that it was her sister who then made payments on the Zilch account to clear the debt. As a result, I don’t think Miss A agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. So, Zilch cannot reasonably hold her liable for the debt, and it cannot reasonably add information to Miss A’s credit file.

-- 1 of 2 --

Our Investigator felt the claim could’ve been handled more sensitively by Zilch in the circumstances. Having listened to the calls that took place I agree that these calls did cause Miss A further distress and inconvenience that went beyond the expected distress and inconvenience of raising a claim against her sibling. As a result, I think Zilch should make a payment of £200 to Miss A here. This seems reasonable to me and in line with what I’d expect in similar cases. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Zilch Technology Limited must do the following; • Remove any record of this credit card from Miss A’s credit file • Pay Miss A £200 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss A to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Mark Dobson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --