- 1Read
- 2Ask
- 3Decide
- 4Ruling
Case 19 of 19 · Level 1
Bank account · letters addressed to a customer who had died
The letters that kept coming
The file · about 5 minutes
The complaint
After her husband died, she and her family wrote to every bank and financial business where he had held an account, an investment or a policy. All of them but one were helpful and efficient, and settling his affairs helped her find some closure. One bank kept sending letters addressed to him. Each one distressed her. Each time she phoned, explained again that he had died, and asked the bank to stop. Each time someone assured her it would, and nobody could say why it kept happening. After several months of this she complained to the bank about the distress. She was not satisfied with its response, and brought the complaint to the ombudsman.
The firm's answer
The published case does not set out what the bank said in reply to her complaint, only that she was not satisfied with it. Its side is in what the file shows it did: its staff apologised on each call and promised that no more letters would come, and the letters came anyway, for several months, including after she had complained.
Evidence in the file
Exhibit A · The letters
Letters from one bank addressed to her late husband, arriving over several months after she had told it that he had died. The letters did not stop when she complained.
Exhibit B · Her calls
Her account of the calls: each time a letter came she phoned the bank, explained again that her husband had died, and asked it to stop writing to him. Each time a member of staff assured her that it would. Nobody could explain why the mistake kept happening.
Exhibit C · The other firms
Every other bank, investment firm and insurer the family contacted dealt with the death quickly and helpfully. The ombudsman noted this because it showed what she could reasonably have expected.
What the bank did after she complained
They did not. The file shows the letters carrying on after her complaint, over several months in all. For the ombudsman this was the fact that made things worse: a mistake is one thing, and a mistake that continues after the customer has formally complained about it is another.
How the ombudsman weighs distress
Background, not from this file: the ombudsman can tell a firm to pay for the distress and inconvenience its mistake caused, as well as for any money lost. The sum follows the impact on the person, how serious it was and how long it went on, not the size of the account. The Financial Ombudsman Service publishes a scale with bands for modest, considerable and serious or sustained impact.
The bank's reply to her complaint
Not in the file. The published case says only that she was not satisfied with the bank's response. It also does not say how many letters there were, or why the bank's records were never corrected.
Uphold the complaint, or side with the firm?
The ruling
Given by the ombudsman
Upheld, £1,000
Why
The ombudsman considered her account of the bank making a very hard time much worse. Each letter addressed to her husband added to her grief, and she had to pick up the phone again and again to explain his death to a stranger. The bank had caused her significant upset over several months, and the upset was made worse because the letters kept coming after she had complained. The ombudsman thought £1,000 for that distress was fair.
What the firm had to do
The bank was to pay her £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience its letters caused.
What an adjudicator takes from this. A single wrong letter is a mistake. The same letter for months, after repeated calls and a complaint, is a failure, and the ombudsman measures it by what it did to the person, not by what it cost in money. If a firm keeps getting something wrong, stop relying on phone promises: put it in writing, keep the date of every call and every letter, and say plainly what the mistake is doing to you. That record is what the complaint is decided on.
Rewritten in our own words from a case the ombudsman published.
Read the guide: The FOS rejected your complaint. Here's what comes next.
What is fair and reasonable is a judgement. The ombudsman gives one; people who read the same file often give another, and this game is about how people weigh the same facts, not about being right. Built from cases the Financial Ombudsman Service and other bodies have published, and from Docketory's own files, rewritten in our own words with every name removed. Docketory is not connected with any of them, and this game is not advice on your own case.
Got a parking ticket? Check it free.
Check your ticket free