Capital One (Europe) plc · DRN-6068041

The complaint Mr B is unhappy with how Capital One (Europe) plc engaged with him about a problem with his credit card. What happened In September 2025 Mr B moved home and a condition of his mortgage was to repay the outstanding balance on his credit card which at the time was a little over £1,600. However, when dispensing the funds to clear the credit card balance Mr B’s solicitors used an incorrect reference number, so the monies did not reach Mr B’s credit card as intended. Mr B’s solicitors notified Mr B of this and he then contacted Capital One. Mr B contacted Capital One several times across four to five weeks to try and locate the funds. Eventually Capital One were able to confirm the funds had been received on 7 September 2025, but due to the incorrect reference number had been paid into another Capital One customer’s account. Mr B complained about how long it had taken Capital One to locate the funds and that they had not been professional in their dealings with him. Mr B said Capital One had caused him and his wife a lot of unnecessary inconvenience and worry at what was supposed to be a positive time of moving home. Capital One accepted they could have located the funds more quickly and that on occasion they could have been more professional in their dealings with Mr B. Capital One apologised to Mr B, assured him that feedback had been taken and said they would pay Mr B £70 into his account as compensation. Mr B didn’t accept this, and on bringing the matter to our service Capital One increased this offer to £120. Mr B did not accept the increased offer. Our Investigator considered the offer of £120 was fair in the circumstances to recognise what had happened. But Mr B did not agree with this as he said that despite the original error not lying with Capital One, the offer did not properly reflect the level of distress and inconvenience Capital One’s involvement in these events had caused him. 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 only included a summary of what’s happened above and while I may not respond to all the points each party has raised, I have reviewed all the submissions available and focused on what I think is relevant to reaching a fair and reasonable resolution for both parties in this matter.

-- 1 of 3 --

Having done so, I’ve reached the same outcome as our Investigator for broadly the same reasons, as I’ll explain. It is not disputed that the original error with the payment was made by Mr B’s solicitors, and I note that Mr B’s solicitors have made a further separate payment to his account. I can see Mr B recognises these events stem from his solicitor’s error, but Mr B’s concerns with Capital One are that they did not then do enough to support and help him, making his dealings with Capital One challenging. I don’t think there is any doubt that Capital One could have done a better job of helping Mr B to find out what had happened to his payment or that they could have, during the course of their dealings with him, been more supportive of their customer at what was a worrying time for him. I’ve considered that while Capital One had a part to play in delaying the location of the funds, the recovery of those funds was something that was also in the hands of Mr B’s solicitors who caused the error and who I think it is fair to say could have attempted recovery of the funds separately via their own bank. So given the circumstances I don’t think there’s enough here for me to say that it would be fair to ask Capital One to pay for any additional interest Mr B says he has incurred. I realise Mr B is upset by how Capital One have treated him as a customer and as I’ve already noted above it is not disputed that Capital One could have been more helpful to Mr B. I recognise that given clearing this credit card was a condition of Mr B’s new mortgage it was particularly important to him. It is difficult to put a price on how something that has gone wrong has impacted someone - it is not an exact science and is of course personal to the individual who has experienced what’s happened. I recognise this would have been a stressful and worrying time for Mr B as this was important to him and his wife, and that getting to the bottom of what happened was time consuming. I would also note that there is a general expectation that sorting out any such problem will come with a level of inconvenience. And it may also help for me to set out that an award to recognise the personal impact to someone should not be regarded as a fine or a punishment – payments of that nature are for the appropriate regulator to consider. I assure Mr B I have given what he has said careful consideration about the timing of what happened and how Capital One’s actions (or inactions) in this matter have impacted him in trying to sort this out. Having taken everything into account I think the £120 that has been offered is not unreasonable in the circumstances. Putting things right It is not clear if Capital One (Europe) plc have already paid Mr B £70. If they have, then this can be deducted from the £120. For the avoidance of doubt, if Capital One (Europe) plc has not yet paid the £70 to Mr B, then Capital One (Europe) plc should pay Mr B £120.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision For the reasons above, my final decision is that Mr B’s complaint is upheld and Capital One (Europe) plc should put things right as I’ve set out above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Kristina Mathews Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --