Graffiti in Bank

BooJewels

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

The FOS become caught between making a commercial judgement for the bank (which they can't do) and treating customers fairly (which they can)

Firstly, without reading back to check, I hadn't thought that the OP had asked for compensation - I thought he was referring to someone else who had at the same branch.

I was also under the impression, after a conversation I had had with the FOS, that they could only look into cases where the was a direct financial implication to the customer after a course of action taken by a financial institution. Maybe closing an account and forcing you to go elsewhere would qualify, but causing offence, inconvenience or hurt feelings doesn't. That was the nature of the complaint I had - no financial loss, just inconvenience and the FOS said it was beyond their remit if I hadn't experienced any monetary error.

Cotta

BooJewels wrote: »

Firstly, without reading back to check, I hadn't thought that the OP had asked for compensation - I thought he was referring to someone else who had at the same branch.

I was also under the impression, after a conversation I had had with the FOS, that they could only look into cases where the was a direct financial implication to the customer after a course of action taken by a financial institution. Maybe closing an account and forcing you to go elsewhere would qualify, but causing offence, inconvenience or hurt feelings doesn't. That was the nature of the complaint I had - no financial loss, just inconvenience and the FOS said it was beyond their remit if I hadn't experienced any monetary error.

Closing the account based on not being happy with this complaint could result in the FOS being able to act.

eskbanker

Outsider_83 wrote: »

Today they responded to advise they were still not upholding my findings and that I seem to have very high standards that they cannot match, therefore it would be better if I sought a different bank as my account would be terminated within 60 days. They also gave me the right to refer to the Ombudsman but I don't see what good this would do.

While any bank's Ts & Cs will give them the right to unilaterally withdraw banking facilities from a customer without having to justify this, I'd have thought that Halifax have left themselves open to a challenge of unfair practices if they've linked the closure with the complaint in writing as implied by the above wording?

JuicyJesus

eskbanker wrote: »

While any bank's Ts & Cs will give them the right to unilaterally withdraw banking facilities from a customer without having to justify this, I'd have thought that Halifax have left themselves open to a challenge of unfair practices if they've linked the closure with the complaint in writing as implied by the above wording?

Nope. That's a perfectly valid grounds for closing the account. It points to the relationship being irrevocably broken down.

Halifax can decide who they want to do business with for any reason that isn't specifically proscribed by law (e.g. race, gender, sexuality). So long as they give the full notice required under the terms they can close your account for any reason they feel like, including no reason at all. FOS universally will not uphold any complaint about closure of accounts unless it was demonstrably (as per convincing evidence) for one of the reasons proscribed by law or the right notice wasn't given.

In this case I think there's been a lot more than a few complaints about a desk that we don't know about. Banks generally don't close accounts for complaining unless you do it to such an extreme extent that it counts as frivolous (i.e. done on stupid little things that are of no importance) and/or vexatious (i.e. deliberately to waste their time or antagonise them).

RG2015

If the bank has said in writing that the customer

"seems to have very high standards that they cannot match, therefore it would be better if they sought a different bank as their account would be terminated within 60 days"

then the customer would have a strong case. I am however, surprised that a bank would use such subjective wording. Indeed, I imagine that their legal department would have serious concerns at the use of such language which may bode well for any possible claims.

JuicyJesus

RG2015 wrote: »

If the bank has said in writing that the customer

"seems to have very high standards that they cannot match, therefore it would be better if they sought a different bank as their account would be terminated within 60 days"

then the customer would have a strong case. I am however, surprised that a bank would use such subjective wording. Indeed, I imagine that their legal department would have serious concerns at the use of such language which may bode well for any possible claims.

They have no case at all. As I mentioned, the bank can close a customer's account for any reason they like that isn't proscribed by law, including no reason at all, so long as the correct notice is given. If they had said "the relationship between us has broken down owing to a high number of complaints", which amounts to the same thing, there still wouldn't be an issue.

We also only have one side to the story. Assuming that that is verbatim (and it may well not be) that just reinforces my suspicion that the OP has made a lot more than these few complaints. It's perfectly valid to close someone's accounts if they insist on making frivolous complaints and expecting money for them. Halifax's wording, again assuming it's verbatim, is essentially a nice way of saying "you've made too many frivolous complaints and we're bored of dealing with them".

RG2015

Outsider_83 wrote: »

Today they responded to advise they were still not upholding my findings and that I seem to have very high standards that they cannot match, therefore it would be better if I sought a different bank as my account would be terminated within 60 days.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

If they had said "the relationship between us has broken down owing to a high number of complaints", which amounts to the same thing, there still wouldn't be an issue.

Interesting.

"I seem to have very high standards that they cannot match"

amounts to the same thing as

"the relationship between us has broken down owing to a high number of complaints"

Also, I see no indication anywhere that the OP has made more than one complaint.

From what the OP has told us and excluding any speculation, the bank has been rather heavy handed in their response.

PeacefulWaters

I see no indication anywhere that the OP has made more than one complaint.

Check their recent posting history.

Second complaint in a short time about a near identical issue.

eskbanker

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Halifax can decide who they want to do business with for any reason that isn't specifically proscribed by law (e.g. race, gender, sexuality). So long as they give the full notice required under the terms they can close your account for any reason they feel like, including no reason at all. FOS universally will not uphold any complaint about closure of accounts unless it was demonstrably (as per convincing evidence) for one of the reasons proscribed by law or the right notice wasn't given.

Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing that Halifax will claim to be acting in accordance with their Ts & Cs and the law as well, but my understanding is that the FOS takes a broader view, as per http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/QG7.pdf:

Our decisions are based on what we believe is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of each individual case. We take into account the law, rules, codes and good practice that applied at the time of the event complained about.

so it sounds plausible to me that FOS might take the view that Halifax aren't acting fairly or reasonably if they respond so heavy-handedly to a complaint, although I do also agree that we haven't heard all sides of the story!

RG2015

RG2015 wrote: »

Also, I see no indication anywhere that the OP has made more than one complaint.

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Check their recent posting history.

Second complaint in a short time about a near identical issue.

I have checked earlier posts and the near identical issue was referring to a complaint by someone else who actually asked for compensation as well. It was the compensation claim that was being questioned by the OP.

The other complaint by the OP was with the Bank of Ireland so really is not relevant to this case.