Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax · DRN-6180604

The complaint Miss G complains that Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax didn’t close her credit card account when it said it would, and about the level of service she received. What happened Miss G held a credit card account with Halifax which had been dormant for several years. In March 2024 Halifax wrote to Miss G and said it would close the account in 65 days. In September 2024 Miss G received an alert from a credit reference agency (CRA) that her account had closed. Miss G made a complaint, as the account had closed several months after she was told it would be. She said this adversely impacted her credit score and affected her ability to obtain credit. She was also unhappy an advisor told her over the phone that she could apply for another credit card after this one was closed, and that her application would be accepted. Halifax apologised for the delay in closing the account and offered Miss G £80 compensation. This amount wasn’t paid to Miss G, as she didn’t receive the cheque in the post and it was cancelled. The complaint was referred to this service and considered by one of our Investigators. They didn’t think there was evidence to suggest Miss G had been significantly impacted by the delay. But they did find that Halifax ought to have provided a better service when responding to the complaint, as Miss G asked to be called back several times and made clear that she hadn’t received Halifax’s response – but this hadn’t been acted on. They recommended that Halifax increase its compensation offer to £300. Halifax accepted our Investigator’s opinion, but Miss G didn’t. She said she wanted to obtain further call recordings that would show she was told she could have another card. Because the matter couldn’t be resolved, the complaint was 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. I can understand it would’ve come as a disappointment to Miss G to discover her account hadn’t been closed when she’d previously been told it would. It’s not disputed there was a delay here – so I’ve considered whether Halifax has done enough to put things right for Miss G considering all of the circumstances. I recognise I’ve summarised Miss G’s complaint in considerably less detail than she has. I’d like to assure both parties that I’ve carefully reviewed and considered all of the information they’ve provided. This includes listening to all relevant phone calls Miss G had with this service and Halifax. My decision will focus on what I consider to be the key points of the complaint. If I haven’t specifically commented on something, it’s not because I didn’t see it – but because I don’t think it affects what I believe to be a fair outcome. This isn’t intended as a discourtesy to either party.

-- 1 of 4 --

Where information is incomplete or contradictory I’ve considered what’s more likely than not on the balance of probabilities. I acknowledge that Miss G has said she wants to provide further information – specifically recordings of calls with Halifax - to support her complaint before a decision is reached. But I’m satisfied the information I’ve seen is enough for me to reach a fair outcome here – and I’ve explained why below. In this decision, I’m only considering the concerns Miss G raised when she contacted Halifax after her account was closed. This included the delay in closing the account, the level of service she received when pursuing the matter and what she was told about applying for a new account. Halifax’s initial decision to close the account – or the service it provided at the time that decision was made – isn’t part of this complaint so I won’t comment on it here. If Miss G has other concerns about the way Halifax has managed her account, she’d need to raise those with Halifax separately in the first instance. I’ll comment on each of the key issues in turn. Delayed account closure The letter issued by Halifax on 12 March 2024 stated that Miss G’s account would be closed in 65 days – so the account should have closed on or around 16 May 2024. It’s not disputed this didn’t happen and – for reasons unknown – the account was closed around three months later in August 2024. Miss G has described the impact this delay had on her. In summary, she says the delay caused her credit score to be significantly reduced which affected her ability to obtain credit with other lenders. I haven’t seen any other evidence relating to this – such as information from Miss G’s credit file or details of declined credit applications. Lenders typically take a wide range of criteria into account when deciding whether to offer credit. So, if Miss G was refused credit that wouldn’t necessarily mean that decision was made because of Halifax’s error. In the absence of evidence showing otherwise, I don’t find it likely that a dormant account with no balance – which had already been open for a long period of time – remaining on Miss G’s credit file for an additional three months would significantly affect her ability to obtain credit. While I don’t doubt that the delay caused some shock and confusion for Miss G I haven’t seen enough evidence to persuade me there was a significant impact beyond that. Miss G has asked this service to comment on the reason behind Halifax’s decision to close the account and the reason for the delay. But as I’ve outlined above, the initial decision to close the account isn’t part of the complaint I’ve considered. And as it’s not disputed that the account closure was delayed in error, I don’t think the reasons behind that error ultimately impact my conclusions about what Halifax needs to do to put things right. Customer service I’ve listened to the calls that took place between Miss G and Halifax between February and August 2025. The contents of these calls aren’t disputed so I won’t reiterate them in detail. But I’m satisfied Miss G called to speak to the agent dealing with her concerns several times, and was promised a call back which didn’t take place on more than one occasion. She also made clear that she hadn’t received Halifax’s response to her complaint in the post and wasn’t aware of the outcome – and Halifax didn’t offer to resend its response until May 2025. It’s clear Miss G was caused some avoidable confusion and frustration here, and Halifax now accepts it ought to have provided a better service here – so I don’t think I need to comment further on this point.

-- 2 of 4 --

2024 phone calls Miss G says she was told over the phone that after her account was closed, she could apply for a new one straight away and that application would definitely be accepted. Halifax says it has no record of this – but that Miss G could apply for a new account subject to its eligibility and acceptance criteria. I’ve listened to the calls provided by Halifax – including a call that took place shortly after it told her the account would be closed. The conversation Miss G describes doesn’t take place in the calls I’ve heard. Miss G believes there are other calls which Halifax hasn’t provided. She says she’s in the process of obtaining these calls from Halifax directly so that I can consider them. She also says there are other calls that took place in 2024 that should be considered. While I understand Miss G’s concern that Halifax hasn’t provided all of the relevant phone calls, I don’t think I need to listen to the call she’s mentioned to decide her complaint. I say this because I have no reason to doubt Miss G’s recollection of events about this call. But even if Miss G was told a further application would be accepted, that wouldn’t affect my overall conclusions about what needs to be done to put things right. I note Miss G hadn’t used her account for several years before it was closed. So, taking what she’s said at face value, I don’t think the matter of whether she could successfully apply for a new one would have caused a significant impact beyond some additional confusion and loss of expectation. I’ve explained my thoughts on fair compensation in more detail below. Miss G says there are other calls in 2024 which haven’t been provided. But the complaint I’m considering here relates to the delay in closing her account, the service she received following the delayed closure and what she was told about applying for a new account. I don’t find it necessary – or beneficial – to listen to every call that took place between Miss G and Halifax in 2024 to decide those points, and Miss G hasn’t explained why she considers those calls relevant to this complaint. I’m satisfied the information I’ve seen is enough to reach a fair conclusion here. If Miss G has specific concerns about the calls which weren’t part of this complaint, she can raise those separately with Halifax in the first instance. Compensation Miss G has asked for compensation of £2,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by Halifax’s handling of the matter. Our Investigator recommended that Halifax pay £300 compensation – which Halifax has now accepted. As I’ve outlined above, I’m satisfied there was a delay in closing Miss G’s account, and that there were some instances of poor service when Miss G raised her concerns. I’m satisfied Halifax’s errors caused some avoidable shock, confusion and frustration. But I haven’t seen anything to suggest Miss G was significantly impacted beyond this. And even assuming Miss G was incorrectly told a new account application would be accepted, I haven’t seen anything to suggest the additional impact caused by that would have been significant. Following our Investigator’s recommendations, Halifax has now agreed to pay Miss G £300 compensation. Taking everything into account – including what Miss G says she was told about applying for a new account - I think this represents a fair reflection of the distress and inconvenience caused by Halifax’s errors. So, even if the call Miss G referred to took place as she describes, I wouldn’t be requiring Halifax to pay more than that. For these reasons, I find it fair that Halifax pay Miss G £300 to resolve her complaint.

-- 3 of 4 --

My final decision My final decision is that I uphold Miss G’s complaint. I require Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax to pay Miss G £300 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss G to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Stephen Billings Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --