Santander UK Plc · DRN-6087913

The complaint Miss H complains that Santander UK Plc provided her with an unaffordable credit card. What happened Miss H was provided with a number of credit products by Santander. This complaint deals with a credit card that was provided on the terms set out in the table below: Date Event details Credit limit August 2017 Original credit limit £1,600 January 2019 1st credit limit increase £2,100 Miss H complained to Santander in May 2025 about irresponsible and unaffordable lending. She said at the time it provided her with the original limit and limit increase she was a student with a limited income, and that better checks ought to have led Santander to conclude she couldn’t sustainably repay the borrowing. Santander didn’t provide Miss H with a final response to her complaint within the regulatory timescales; so, she referred her complaint to our service for review. One of our investigators looked at the details of this complaint about the credit card and considered it was reasonable to interpret it to be about the fairness of Miss H’s relationship with Santander. As such she went on to review the details of the complaint on this basis. Having done so, she didn’t consider Santander had acted unfairly in its lending decisions, or in any other way across the relationship, so she didn’t uphold the complaint. Santander didn’t respond to our investigator’s view; Miss H responded and disagreed. In summary, she maintained her position and said she was a student on a low income when Santander provided the original limit and limit increase, consistently using her overdraft to make ends meet. She said better checks ought to have led to Santander identifying this lending wouldn’t be affordable for her, and that it therefore unfairly provided it. Miss H has also told our service about a health condition which she says leads to her having poor judgment when it comes to making financial decisions, as well as a more recent health diagnosis. Miss H asked for an ombudsman’s review, so 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. The information in this case is well known to Miss H and Santander, so I don’t intend to repeat it in detail here. I’d like to assure both parties I’ve carefully reviewed everything available to me even though I may not have commented on it, because I’ve focused my decision on what I consider to be the key points of this complaint. I don’t mean to be

-- 1 of 4 --

discourteous to Miss H or Santander by taking this approach, but this simply reflects the informal nature of our service. Initially I think it’s helpful for me to set out that there are time limits for bringing a complaint to our service, and Santander has said this complaint was referred to us late. Our investigator set out within their view why they didn’t think we could look at Miss H’s complaint about the lending decisions Santander had made, because these events happened more than six years before the complaint was made. But they also went on to explain why it was reasonable to interpret Miss H’s complaint as being about an unfair relationship as described in section 140A (s.140) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA); and why they therefore considered Miss H’s complaint about an allegedly unfair lending relationship had been made to us in time. I don’t intend to go into the same level of detail as our investigator already set out in my decision here, but for the avoidance of doubt I agree with our investigator that I have the power to look at Miss H’s complaint on this basis. I say this because I’m satisfied Miss H’s complaint is that Santander irresponsibly provided her with lending which she says was unaffordable. The provision of this credit card may have made the relationship between Miss H and Santander unfair, as she may have paid more in interest and charges than she could afford. I acknowledge Santander doesn’t agree we can look at any events more than six years before Miss H’s complaint was made, but as I don’t intend to uphold this complaint I won’t be commenting on this further. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable I’m required to take into account, amongst other matters, relevant law. As I consider Miss H’s complaint is about the fairness of her relationship with Santander, relevant law in this case includes s.140A-C of the CCA. S.140A says a court may make an order under s.140B if it determines that the relationship between the creditor (in this case Santander) and the debtor (Miss H), 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: • 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. Santander has confirmed the relationship is ongoing. S.140B 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 the details of Miss H’s complaint, I need to consider whether Santander’s decisions to lend to her, or any other actions it may have taken, created an unfairness in the relationship between her and Santander; and if it did, whether Santander took reasonable steps to remove that unfairness.

-- 2 of 4 --

We’ve set out our approach to complaints about irresponsible and unaffordable lending as well as the key rules, regulations and what we consider to be good industry practice on our website. I’ve followed this approach when considering Miss H’s complaint. Having done so, I don’t consider Santander made unfair lending decisions when providing Miss H with these credit card limits. I say this because: • Santander hasn’t been able to provide us with the details of the checks it completed before providing the limits in 2017 and 2019. While I don’t consider that to be unreasonable given the time that’s passed and the data retention obligations on it, it does mean I can’t safely conclude the checks it completed were proportionate. • I’ve therefore gone on to determine what I consider Santander would more likely than not have identified through proportionate checks; and having done so I don’t think it’s likely these would have shown it was unfair to provide Miss H with this lending. • I say this as I’ve reviewed Miss H’s bank statements covering three months before each lending event. I’m not suggesting Santander needed to have reviewed Miss H’s bank statements in order to have completed proportionate checks; but in the absence of any other contradictory information, I consider these bank statements allow me to obtain a reasonable understanding of what proportionate checks into Miss H’s financial circumstances at the time would more likely than not have shown Santander. • Miss H’s income, non-discretionary expenditure and commitments to existing lines of credit are evidenced within the statements. On average across both of the three month periods leading up to each lending event, I’m satisfied the information suggests Miss H had a reasonable level of disposable income to sustainably afford the repayments to these credit limits. • While I acknowledge Miss H’s income is relatively modest, and supportive of her testimony that she was a student with a part time income at the time of these lending events; Miss H’s evidenced non-discretionary expenditure and commitment to existing credit is also relatively modest. • Miss H has said Santander shouldn’t have provided the credit card, or limit increase, given she was using her overdraft each month to make ends meet. I accept that the bank statements I’ve reviewed do show Miss H’s use of the overdraft facility, and I’m mindful that as this account was also with Santander, that it would have had this information available to it, had it considered other account management as part of its checks before providing these credit card limits. • However, Miss H’s bank account balance did largely fluctuate between a credit and debit balance across 2017, 2018 and up to the limit increase in 2019. And Miss H largely managed her credit card well in the lead up to the limit increase, making monthly payments above the contractual minimum. • I also note that both the overdraft facility and this credit card are revolving credit accounts, meaning in part that they have no fixed repayment structure. Santander’s checks needed to show that Miss H could afford to repay the lending it was providing across a reasonable period of time, rather than in one payment. • I don’t find it unreasonable, based on my review of Miss H’s bank statements and her

-- 3 of 4 --

management of her accounts with Santander, that the evidence suggests she could afford to make repayments to this credit card at a reasonable level, to repay the debt across a reasonable period of time. So, for the reasons I’ve set out above I’m not persuaded that Santander acted unfairly when providing Miss H with the original credit card and credit limit increase. I’ve gone on to consider if Santander acted unfairly in any other way during this relationship. Up until around mid 2022 Miss H was largely making payments in excess of her contractual monthly minimum; however, from mid 2022 onwards this behaviour changed, although I have seen that Santander did send Miss H persistent debt and notice of sums in arrears letters across the years. So, it does appear it was actively engaging with Miss H about the management of her credit card when it identified potential or actual concerns. Miss H made us aware that Santander unreasonably restricted her use of the credit card in early 2025. Santander has said this point appears to relate to a different account which our service considered under a separate complaint. I’ve seen no purchases on the credit card since late 2024; however, this appears likely given Miss H’s balance was above its agreed limit at this time, and Santander has said the credit card has been in and out of the management of its collection and recoveries department across the years. Given Miss H’s complaint to Santander about unaffordable lending, and her testimony about her current financial situation, I don’t consider it unreasonable that Santander may have looked to restrict further use to look to mitigate further financial harm So, for the reasons set out above, I haven’t seen anything up to the point of Miss H’s complaint which leads me to conclude Santander has acted unfairly in its lending decisions, or in any other way in relation to this agreement. I acknowledge my decision will be disappointing to Miss H; it isn’t intended to doubt or downplay the information she’s told us about her current and historic health and financial circumstances, which I am sorry to hear off. But for the reasons I’ve set out above, it follows that I’m not directing it to take any further action in resolution of this complaint. I would, however, take this opportunity to remind Santander of its ongoing obligation to exercise forbearance and to treat Miss H fairly and sympathetically in any ongoing engagement and collection activity relating to this debt. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Miss H’s complaint about Santander UK Plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss H to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Richard Turner Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --