Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money · DRN-6034950

The complaint Mr D complains about problems he encountered when changing the direct debit for his mortgage with Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money (VM). What happened Mr D called VM in March 2025 to change the bank account that the direct debit for his mortgage came from. Mr D was told this had been changed from April 2025. On 2 April 2025, Mr D called VM as the direct debit hadn’t left his account. During this call, Mr D was told the account wasn’t showing as returned and was showing as paid, but he was advised to call back at the end of that week to make a manual payment if the payment hadn’t gone through. Mr D was also told in this call that the account number VM had was incorrect and advised him that a new direct debit mandate would be sent for him to complete and return. VM says it received notification of the direct debit being cancelled on 3 April 2025 and wrote to Mr D to let him know he needed to make the payment. Mr D called VM on 1 May 2025 as the payment still hadn’t been taken. He made a payment for both April and May’s mortgage payment and raised a complaint that this had impacted his credit file. VM didn’t uphold the complaint, so Mr D referred the complaint to us. Our Investigator thought the complaint should be upheld. VM didn’t agree, so the complaint has been passed to me to make a final decision. 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’ve thought carefully everything both VM and Mr D has sent us and I’ve listened to all of the calls between Mr D and VM. Having done so, I can see why Mr D may have been somewhat confused with exactly what has gone on. And I think this confusion stems from the call Mr D had with VM on 2 April 2025. When Mr D called VM on 2 April to check the direct debit had been set up correctly, the call handler confirmed both the sort code and account number with Mr D. Mr D says that the account number had an incorrect digit. Whilst I understand that this was an error by the call handler and VM did in fact have the correct account number, I think this caused confusion for Mr D. In the same call, VM went on to tell Mr D that the monthly payment wasn’t showing as returned at that point and was showing as paid. I think Mr D would’ve been reassured by this. VM also said it would be sending a new direct debit form. However, Mr D was also asked to call back around the end of the week to ensure that the payment had cleared.

-- 1 of 2 --

Unfortunately, Mr D did not do so. I’ve also noted that Mr D was sent two letters asking him to get in touch as his payment for April hadn’t been made, and he didn’t. I therefore understand VM’s point that Mr D could’ve done more in this regard. VM has said the direct debit was showing as cancelled. We don’t know why that happened, but I don’t think I need to make a finding on this to reach a fair outcome. As I’ve said, I think Mr D would’ve been reassured during his first call with VM that nothing was wrong. I don’t think the call handler was as clear as they could’ve been, nor that they made it clear how important it was that Mr D call back later in the week. I also note that when Mr D called on 1 May, he was told he should’ve been put through to another team in order to make a manual payment in the first call. So, it’s unclear to me whether VM has followed its correct process here. Furthermore, if the call handler thought that the account number was incorrect, then it would follow it was unlikely that the direct debit would have been successful, therefore Mr D should’ve been advised to make a manual payment then and there. I’m required to reach an outcome that I consider to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. Whilst I accept Mr D could’ve called back VM when he was told he should, and subsequently written to, as I’ve said, VM has caused confusion here. I also note that Mr D was proactive in calling VM as soon as he realised that the direct debit hadn’t been taken on 1 April as it normally was. Ultimately, the payment was only received one day after the month that it should’ve been. It’s clear that this payment wasn’t made as a result of Mr D not being able to and was more a result of a misunderstanding, caused in part by VM. I therefore don’t think that VM should be reporting this as arrears or a late payment on his credit file. As I’ve explained, VM did provide Mr D with misleading information at one point. And I think this led to inconvenience for Mr D, and I think it could’ve transferred him to another team to make the manual payment sooner avoiding all of the issues he ended up encountering. So, I think it should pay some compensation to reflect this. Putting things right To put matters right, Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money should: • Correct Mr D’s credit file so that no missed payments or arrears are being reported to credit reference agencies regarding the above matter. • Refund any fees that it may have applied because of this. • Pay Mr D £100 for the distress and inconvenience this matter has caused. My final decision I uphold this complaint and direct Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Virgin Money to put things right as set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 15 April 2026. Rob Deadman Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --