DRN-4628397
The complaint
Mr H complains that MBNA Limited hasn’t provided him with the service it should have
regarding payments to his credit card account.
What happened
Mr H has a MBNA credit card and says that MBNA changed his monthly direct debit to take
the minimum payment, rather than the full balance amount. This has meant he has incurred
interest and accrued a substantial balance on his account.
MBNA issued a final response letter dated 11 July 2023. It said that the change from paying
the full balance amount to the minimum amount was made in January 2019 and so it fell
outside of the time limits for making a complaint. But after the complaint was referred to this
service MBNA agreed that it had been raised in time.
Our investigator didn’t uphold this complaint. He said that Mr H’s statements showed he was
only making the minimum payments and that as Mr H was for a time also making additional
manual payments this suggested he was aware that his direct debit wasn’t taking the full
amount each month. He said that Mr H had opted for online statements in November 2017
and he couldn’t hold MBNA responsible if Mr H didn’t review these.
Mr H didn’t accept our investigator’s view. He agreed that he had changed from paper
statements to online statements but said he didn’t change his direct debit to only take the
minimum payment. He said that MBNA’s systems should be able to show who initiated this
change and he noted that he hadn’t received any notification from MBNA about this
happening. He said that MBNA had a duty of care, and he hadn’t been provided this causing
him inconvenience, distress and financial loss.
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 understand how distressing this issue has been for Mr H and I appreciate that he is now in
a position he wasn’t expecting regarding his MBNA account.
Mr H said he had paid the full monthly balance on his account and has provided copies of
statements from 2017. These show that he was making payments to the account by faster
payments at that time. He then set up a direct debit and received a letter from MBNA about
this in November 2017. The letter doesn’t state whether the direct debit is for the full
balance, but I note that the evidence provided by MBNA shows that the direct debit
instruction was changed in January 2019 from ‘full’ to ‘minimum’. Therefore, I find it
reasonable to accept that before the change in January 2019, Mr H was paying the full
balance on his account each month.
The information provided doesn’t show whether the direct debit change was based on an
instruction from Mr H and I can see that MBNA has tried to find further details but hasn’t
been able to provide a conclusion to this point. I can see that following the change Mr H was
still making a payment to his account additional to the direct debit which could suggest he
was aware that he wasn’t clearing the balance in full each month, although I note Mr H’s
comments about this payment. MBNA has also said that from March 2019 Mr H was
contacted with confirmation about his payments. So, while I cannot say for certain why the
change was made, I think it reasonable to accept that Mr H had the information available to
him to be aware of the change.
MBNA has said that Mr H had online banking set up from 2017 and so his statements were
set to be viewed online. Mr H agreed that this had happened. I have seen copies of the
statements provided during the period when Mr H’s direct debit was for the minimum
payment only and these are clear as to the activity on his account and payments made.
Therefore, I find that Mr H had the information available to him to understand the status of
his account.
I understand that Mr H feels he hasn’t been treated fairly as the change to minimum
payments meant interest accrued and his balance wasn’t cleared. But Mr H was aware his
statements were being posted online and these set out the payments being made to his
account and the outstanding balance. It was Mr H’s responsibility to check his statements to
ensure they were correct and raise any issues at the time. I note Mr Hs comment that he
didn’t check his statements but trusted that his account was being managed correctly but I
find it reasonable that he would have noticed his payments were less than the amount he
was spending on his card each month. Given this I think it reasonable that he would have
checked this.
Therefore, on balance, as I cannot say for certain why the change was made to the
payments on Mr H’s account, and I find that Mr H had the information available to him to be
aware of his account and the payments being made, I do not find I can uphold this
complaint.
My final decision
My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint.
Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or
reject my decision before 15 April 2024.
Jane Archer
Ombudsman
