Frasers Group Financial Services Limited · DRN-6106408

The complaint Mr W complains that Frasers Group Financial Services Limited trading as Studio excluded his account from the transfer to Fraser Plus. What happened Mr W holds a credit account with Studio. He’s unhappy because his account wasn’t transferred to Fraser Plus but was instead sold to a debt collection agency. He complained to Studio. Studio issued a final response on 20 September 2026. It said it had sent an email to Mr W on 19 May 2025 to advise him that his account was in arrears and explaining that unless he was able to bring the account up to date, it may be unable to switch the account to Frasers Plus and may instead transfer the account. Studio acknowledged that Mr W had responded to the email indicating that he wanted to opt in to the switch. Studio said it had sent a Default Notice to Mr W on 3 July 2025 requiring him to pay £447.38 within 21 days. It said that Mr W hadn’t made as payment in response to the Default Notice but had subsequently set up a payment arrangement which meant it was unable to switch the account to Frasers Plus and had instead sold the account to a debt collection agency. Mr W wasn’t happy with the response and brought his complaint to this service. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They said they didn’t think it was unreasonable in the circumstances that Studio had decided not to transfer Mr W’s account to Fraser Plus. Mr W didn’t agree. He said that Studio hadn’t treated him fairly and that as a vulnerable customer he’d experienced a worse outcome than customers who weren’t in financial difficulty. Because Mr W didn’t agree I’ve been asked to review the complaint. 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 know it will disappoint Mr W but I agree with the investigator’s opinion. I’ll explain why. I’ve reviewed the history of the account. I can see that Mr W was struggling with payments and had accrued arrears. He’s explained that this was due to him being made redundant. I can see that a Default Notice was issued on 3 July 2025. Mr W couldn’t pay the sum required in the Default Notice but instead contacted Studio and made a payment arrangement. I can see that Mr W made a payment in August 2025. This was the first payment received on the account since December 2024. Studio has confirmed that the reason it didn’t transfer Mr W’s account was because of the

-- 1 of 2 --

arrears. It has also confirmed that past payment history was one of the factors used to determine which accounts should switch and which should not. The terms and conditions of the agreement state that Studio can transfer the agreement at any time. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think Studio made an error or treated Mr W unfairly when it excluded his account from the switch. There was a history of missed payments and arrears on the account. A Default Notice had been issued but Mr W wasn’t able to pay the sum required within the timescale specified. Mr W has said that his financial vulnerability meant that he was treated less favourably than customers who weren’t in financial difficulty. He feels that this is unfair and breached the FCA Consumer Duty principles. I’ve thought about Consumer Duty in the context of this complaint. The Consumer Duty requires businesses to ensure (amongst other things) good outcomes for customers and fair treatment of vulnerable customers. Where a customer is experiencing financial hardship, this service would expect a business to offer support. Examples of support might include freezing interest and charges, breathing space, payment plans or payment holidays and assistance from a specialist support team. In Mr W’s case, I can see that Studio froze interest on the account in April 2025 and later set up a payment plan based on what was affordable for him. Based on what I’ve seen I’m satisfied that Studio offered reasonable and appropriate support to Mr W. I appreciate that Mr W feels strongly about this. He doesn’t think it’s fair that his account wasn’t switched. Having reviewed the available information, I think Studio acted reasonably when it decided not to switch Mr W’s account. I say this because various factors were taken into consideration in deciding whether to switch an account or not. Payment history on the account and arrears (and the likelihood of arrears being paid off) were all factors. I understand that Mr W is upset about his account being sold to a third party. The terms and conditions of the agreement allow Studio to do this. Mr W agreed to the terms and conditions when he opened the account. It isn’t unusual for a business to sell or assign an account, particularly where the account is in arrears or under a payment arrangement. Having reviewed everything, I’m unable to find evidence that Studio has made an error or treated Mr W unfairly. For the reasons I’ve explained, I’m unable to uphold the complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 17 April 2026. Emma Davy Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --