Bank forcing customer to close accounts after successful complaint to FSO

J

Jumpstartdublin

Registered User
Messages
223
sister and her partner have bank accounts in two separate branches of same high street bank.

They submitted previous complaints to FSO ombudsman regarding various issues and these were upheld.


They recently made 'access request' data protection act as bank refused to provide copy of a letter they sent previously.

Now both received two letters each for current account and credit card account to say bank will close them in 60 days. They have no arrears and excellent credit rating. Is this permissable. Bank gave no reason except included copy of account terms and conditions.
 
If only it was so easy - they have arrangements and credit terms with the bank and are fearful they might not get with a switcher bank. Yes they would love to move
 
Your sister and partner are clearly quite well read on the T's & C's, what do they say about the matter?

Unless they could say they're being discriminated against under one of the illegal grounds for discrimination (as far as I know being a pain in the backside to deal with isn't one), or unless there are regulations governing the circumstances in which a bank can terminate its services to a customer, it looks like they're goosed. Let's hope their previous moral victories were worth whatever the future financial cost of switching on new terms is... :(
 
Check the Consumer Protection Code. I think it might say something.

Also, ask to see your file under the Data Protection Act.

Brendan
 
One of the general principles of the CPC is that organisations have to "Act honestly, fairly & professionally in the best interests of its customers & the market."

Unless there is a general closure of accounts of the type held by the OP, then it is how to see how targeting the OP's account for closure after a complaint has been made can be considered fair treatment. Looks like OP will be sending in another complaint to the CPC.
 
odyssey06 said:
it is [hard] to see how targeting the OP's account for closure after a complaint has been made can be considered fair treatment.
Click to expand...
Say I have 100 customers for a low margin, largely automated service.
Say one of those customers demands 50 times more labor to satisfy than the other 99.

Is it fair to refuse service to that customer (who has proved unprofitable up to this point)?
Is it fair to ask the other 99 to subsidize the 1?
 
trasneoir said:
Say I have 100 customers for a low margin, largely automated service.
Say one of those customers demands 50 times more labor to satisfy than the other 99.
Is it fair to refuse service to that customer (who has proved unprofitable up to this point)?
Is it fair to ask the other 99 to subsidize the 1?
Click to expand...

Yes it is unfair, because it is not transparent and at the time the customer opened the account, there was no indication that this would be an issue.
If manual requests are a cost issue, introduce a charging structure for them which apply fairly to all account holders.
 
trasneoir said:
Say I have 100 customers for a low margin, largely automated service.
Say one of those customers demands 50 times more labor to satisfy than the other 99.

Is it fair to refuse service to that customer (who has proved unprofitable up to this point)?
Is it fair to ask the other 99 to subsidize the 1?
Click to expand...

If the reason they demand more labour to service is the banks cock up in the first place, then yes it is unfair. And worse than that, it actively undermines the FSO system.

What ever dispute these people had with the bank appears to have been judged the banks fault by the FSO.
 
Very grateful for such good feedback and comments. Similar to majority of customers they had never read terms and conditions. I saw today and it says bank can close account if so wishes. It is most unfortunate and regrettable that bank can do this action and FSO today confirmed that they can investigate new complaint regarding matter in due course. All the previous complaints were upheld. They were made because valid issues arose and these were all upheld by FSO.

As an aside - sister queried today with KBC and was amazed at the free/ low charges- so her initial frustration may be a blessing in disguise.
 
From the Consumer Protection Code

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A regulated entity must ensure that in all its dealings with customers and within the
context of its authorisation it:

2.1 acts honestly, fairly and professionally in the best interests of its customers
and the integrity of the market;


2.8 corrects errors and handles complaints speedily, efficiently and fairly;



2.11 without prejudice to the pursuit of its legitimate commercial aims, does not,
through its policies, procedures, or working practices, prevent access to basic
financial services; and

2.12 complies with the letter and spirit of this Code.


Reading this as a whole, I think that the Central Bank would look very unfavourably on a bank closing an account to "punish" someone who has made a successful complaint to the FSO.

I do think you should refer it to the Central Bank. You won't benefit from it yourself, but it's useful market information for them. They will probably write to the bank and ask them about their policy. If the CB investigates complaints handling procedures, they would check this out.
 
Brendan - very useful and helpful consideration and advice. I will indeed ask them to write the Central Bank- as FSO told them that they can't interfere in bank's 'business decisions', despite the obvious links to the complaints they submitted
 
Sister got calls from premier banking BOI telling her how great her record was and maintenance/ track record on accounts excellent over years. Then when she explained that letters to force close accounts - operator said unaware and will investigate why!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top