The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc · DRN-6173088

The complaint Mr F is unhappy with the way The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (RBS) has been administering debt he has with them. When I refer to what Mr F and/or RBS said or did, it should also be taken to include things said or done on their behalf. What happened Mr F has an outstanding debt with RBS. RBS has instructed a few different Debt Collection Agencies (DCAs) to collect it on their behalf. In summary Mr F said he is unhappy about: 1. Deliberate misrepresentation about the recall of his debt account; 2. Breaches of data protection law (UK GDPR/DPA 2018); 3. Failure to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and 4. Ignoring his formal complaint within statutory timelines (28 days). Mr F said his debt was managed by a DCA from 2007 until 12 September 2023, when RBS recalled it and falsely claimed in writing (14 June 2024) that this DCA terminated the account and passed it to another DCA. Mr F said that a letter from the first DCA, dated 14 March 2025, proves RBS recalled the account. Mr F also feels that RBS unlawfully shared his data with a DCA without informing him. Plus, he said that he had submitted a request for full payment history and for the executed credit agreement. He is also unhappy with how long RBS has taken to respond to his complaint and also that they are refusing to clarify payment discrepancies between what he paid to one of the DCA’s in comparison to what has been recorded by RBS. Mr F believes that RBS should: 1. Disclose all payment records since 2007; 2. Provide the executed credit agreement (or confirm it does not exist); 3. Explain why false statements were made; 4. Pay compensation for: - Distress and time wasted; - Data protection breaches; - Potential debt invalidation if documentation is missing; 5. Correct all inaccurate data shared with third parties. Considering Mr was not happy with RBS’s actions, he referred his complaint to us; the Financial Ombudsman Service (Financial Ombudsman). Our investigator was of the opinion that RBS did not need to take any further action in relation to Mr F’s complaint.

-- 1 of 4 --

Mr F disagreed with the investigator. As such, 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. Where evidence is unclear or in dispute, I reach my findings on the balance of probabilities – which is to say, what I consider most likely to have happened based on the evidence available and the surrounding circumstances. And when I am considering what is fair and reasonable, I need to take into account the relevant rules, guidance, the law, and, where appropriate, what would be considered to have been good industry practice at the relevant time. Mr H has provided very detailed submissions, but I have summarised this complaint very briefly, in less detail than has been provided, and largely in my own words. No discourtesy is intended by this. If there is something I have not mentioned, I have not ignored it. I have not commented on every individual detail. But I have focussed on those that are central to me reaching, what I think is, the right outcome. This reflects the informal nature of the Financial Ombudsman as a free alternative to the courts. Also, I can only consider the aspects relating to this specific complaint. I cannot look at certain actions and/or inactions of RBS for complaints that have already been referred to our service under a different reference, and I cannot look at issues that have not yet been raised with RBS once they have not had a chance to address. In this decision I am only looking at the events that have been raised by Mr F with RBS and the ones they were provided an opportunity to address. In summary, in this decision, I am not looking at Mr F’s previous complaint points as this service has issued a final decision. That decision said that Mr F may have made further payments that are not reflected on the statement, but RBS has offered to investigate these once Mr F provides his receipts and the ombudsman in that decision found that to be fair and reasonable. The decision also comments that he has been provided a copy of the statements covering five years of payment. The other decision I am referring to also said that RBS was entitled to transfer his debt to a DCA to manage the account and arrange repayments. It said that it is not unusual for a bank to use more than one DCA when managing debts in this way, and the ombudsman said they have seen evidence that letters were sent to Mr F each time the DCA changed. As such, the ombudsman was satisfied that RBS has sent sufficient evidence that it was sent. The ombudsman in that decision also concluded that the Financial Ombudsman Service does not have the power to comment on the legalities of selling data to third parties. Based on the above I will not be considering those parts that have already been considered. Mr F feels that RBS has misrepresented the recall of the debt. In summary, he said that RBS falsely claimed in writing on 14 June 2024, that a certain DCA terminated the account and passed it to another DCA. He feels that the letter he received on 12 March 2025 proves RBS recalled the account. However, I can see that a letter from that DCA on 12 September 2023 confirmed that his account was recalled by RBS. Also, I cannot say that I have seen enough evidence to say that, most likely, RBS claimed that DCA terminated the account in their letter to him.

-- 2 of 4 --

I know the letter states that “It may be helpful to explain that as a result of a business decision, all terminated accounts are passed to a third party DCA to maintain contact, manage and obtain repayments of the debt from the customer until the debt is repaid in full.” The letter does use the word ‘terminated’ however, the letter did not say that DCA had terminated the debt. Instead, the letter goes on to state that “after each agent has exhausted their contact attempts you are handed over to another agent to main the account.”. As such, it seems the letter was only confirming the standard process and then clarifies that the account had been passed to another DCA. I think maybe the letter could have been more clear, but I cannot say that I have seen enough evidence to say that low clarity of the letter had a sufficient impact to warrant me to ask RBS to pay Mr F compensation. Finally, I have not seen any other evidence to allow me, on balance, to conclude that RBS misrepresented the situation as to the debt being terminated instead of being recalled and transferred to a different DCA. Mr F also feels strongly that RBS failed to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because they are withholding certain information from him. He feels they have not provided him with a signed credit agreement he has requested. But overall, I have not seen enough evidence that would allow me to say that the impact of not having a copy of that agreement would warrant me to ask RBS to pay him compensation. Also, I know that Mr F has questioned the enforceability of that agreement due to him not having that information he has previously requested, however it is not for me to comment on whether that agreement is enforceable or not. Also, more importantly, I think that Mr F was aware of the funds he received form RBS, had the benefit of those funds, and, as such, it would not be fair and reasonable for me to say that he should not be responsible for paying back this debt. The other point that Mr F made was that RBS did not respond to his complaint with the time frame allowed by the Financial Conduct Authority’s DISP rules. RBS had eight weeks to respond to Mr F’s complaint. However, I can see that Mr F referred his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman before that time had elapsed. As such, I do not think this had a significant impact on him. And, more importantly, issues that may be solely about complaint handling, are not in themselves a regulated activity that the Financial Ombudsman can consider. As such, I can only look at Mr F’s complaint about the customer service he received. This is ancillary to his overall dissatisfaction with how he had been treated by RBS given his relationship as a customer of RBS who are the provider of a credit product in this situation. Based on what I have seen, I do not think it would be fair and reasonable to direct RBS to take any further action in relation to his complaint. The other aspect that I have considered was around the fact that Mr F was unhappy as he said RBS are refusing to clarify payment discrepancies regarding the amount he paid to one of the DCA’s. Also, he was unhappy that he had to be the one to prove that this discrepancy existed. Mr F said that from 7 June 2024 to 28 March 2025, he had paid one DCA a total of £300. However, only £150 was recorded as being received. First, I should explain that I am not commenting on the fact that Mr F is unhappy that he was the one that had to prove the discrepancy, because Mr F already had a decision from this service which stated that he may have made payments which are not reflected on the DCA’s statement. As a result, RBS has offered to investigate these, once Mr F provides his receipts, and the ombudsman in their decision found that to be fair and reasonable. Since that particular decision, Mr F has provided RBS with the required evidence to show the discrepancy did exist. Also, the DCA now has located the payments and these funds have been accounted for as part of his repaid debt. As such, I think an error occurred, but I also considered that Mr F continued to make payments to the previous DCA despite being notified by RBS of a DCA change. Bearing these circumstances in mind, I do not think it

-- 3 of 4 --

would be fair and reasonable to ask RBS to take any further action in relation to this aspect of Mr F’s complaint. Overall, I sympathise with Mr F for the difficulties that he is experiencing. However, taking all the circumstances of the complaint into account, I have not seen enough evidence to say that RBS needs to take any further action in relation to this complaint. My final decision For the reasons given above I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Mike Kozbial Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --