- 1Read
- 2Ask
- 3Decide
- 4Ruling
Case 10 of 19 · Level 2
A bank account · reopening a dormant account
Two buses to the branch
The thick file · about 10 minutes
The complaint
The customer had a bank account he had stopped using years before, and he had lost its debit card. He decided to make it his main account and asked the bank for a new card. The bank said the account was dormant, because nothing had moved through it for several years, and that it could be reopened only once his identity had been checked in a branch. He relies on public transport, and the nearest branch is two bus journeys away; he has heart problems and finds getting about hard. He offered to post his identity documents instead. The bank said a branch visit or nothing, so he made the journey. At the branch nothing about him had changed, he answered every security question, the account was reopened and a new card was issued. He says the checks could have been done just as easily over the phone, and that the bank put him through a journey it knew he would struggle with.
The firm's answer
The bank says its security process for a dormant account is strict for good reason, and requires a customer's identity to be verified in person before the account is reopened. A branch visit is the quickest way through that process for most customers, and the bank says it could not reopen the account without one.
Evidence in the file
Exhibit A · The request and the answer
A new debit card for an account unused for several years, which the customer now wanted as his main account. The bank's answer: the account is dormant, and reopening it needs an identity check in a branch.
Exhibit B · His circumstances
He relies on public transport, and the nearest branch is two bus journeys away. He has heart problems and difficulty getting about. He told the bank this before he travelled.
Exhibit C · His offer
To post the bank his identity documents instead of bringing them in. The bank said it could not reopen the account unless he came to the branch.
Exhibit D · The visit
He made the journey. The branch checked his documents and asked the security questions; none of his personal details had changed, he answered every question, and the account was reopened with a new card issued.
What the bank knew before he travelled
Before he set out he had told the bank about his heart problems and his difficulty getting about, said the branch was two bus journeys away, and offered to post his documents. The bank's answer each time was the same: a branch visit, or the account stays closed. It knew his circumstances and offered no other way.
What the branch checked
The branch asked him the security questions and looked at his documents. None of his personal details had changed in the years the account had sat unused, and the questions were ones he could have answered on the phone.
What firms must do for a customer in poor health
Background, not from this file: the regulator expects a firm to take account of what it knows about a customer's health, mobility and circumstances, and to consider a reasonable alternative where its standard process would put that customer at a real disadvantage. A strict security check is not wrong in itself; the question is whether the firm thought about other ways of meeting it.
Medical evidence
Not in the file. No letter from a doctor is part of this case.
The bank's written procedure for dormant accounts
Not in the file. The bank's own procedure is not among the papers; what the file shows is what the bank told the customer: in person, or not at all.
Uphold the complaint, or side with the firm?
The ruling
Given by the ombudsman
Upheld
Why
The ombudsman understood why the bank has a rigorous security process for a dormant account, and accepted that for many customers a branch visit is the quickest way through it. But this customer had explained his health and mobility problems, said how far the branch was, and offered to post his documents, and the bank had still insisted on the visit. Given what it knew, the bank could and should have considered other options: he could have answered the security questions over the phone just as easily as in the branch, where nothing about him had changed. By requiring the journey, the bank caused him distress and inconvenience that were not necessary.
What the firm had to do
The bank was to pay him £150 for the distress and inconvenience. The account was already open and the card already in his hands.
What an adjudicator takes from this. A process can be reasonable in general and unreasonable for the person in front of it. The bank's rule was not the problem; applying it without a thought for what it already knew about this customer was. Tell a firm your circumstances before you do what it asks, keep a note of what you said and when, and ask what else it can do. An adjudicator looks at what the firm did with what it knew.
Rewritten in our own words from a case the ombudsman published.
Read the guide: The Consumer Duty explained: what it asks of financial firms
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