Co-operative bank refusing to pay £125 refer-a-friend offer FOS case

ForumUser7

Bridlington1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Success at last (in this case at least).

Excellent outcome!

Did you highlight to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS (e.g. as per my post earlier in the thread) yourself, or did the Ombudsman come up with that on their own?

I wonder why the investigator didn't apply that test in the first place.

I didn't mention it. But the Ombudsmen are clued up.

Thanks.  Some of the Ombudsmen are really good, but some of the others...

I did mention to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS so hopefully that will run in my favour. Many thanks for mentioning this earlier in the thread, I suspect this information will be invaluable.

Although I don't know if precedent happens in the FOS, it may be worth sending them a link to the post with that case decision - if a colleague upheld it, they may feel more inclined to do the same

flaneurs_lobster

ForumUser7 said:

Bridlington1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Success at last (in this case at least).

Excellent outcome!

Did you highlight to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS (e.g. as per my post earlier in the thread) yourself, or did the Ombudsman come up with that on their own?

I wonder why the investigator didn't apply that test in the first place.

I didn't mention it. But the Ombudsmen are clued up.

Thanks.  Some of the Ombudsmen are really good, but some of the others...

I did mention to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS so hopefully that will run in my favour. Many thanks for mentioning this earlier in the thread, I suspect this information will be invaluable.

Although I don't know if precedent happens in the FOS, it may be worth sending them a link to the post with that case decision - if a colleague upheld it, they may feel more inclined to do the same

Is there a Case Number or Reference that could be quoted?

Bridlington1

ForumUser7 said:

Bridlington1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Success at last (in this case at least).

Excellent outcome!

Did you highlight to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS (e.g. as per my post earlier in the thread) yourself, or did the Ombudsman come up with that on their own?

I wonder why the investigator didn't apply that test in the first place.

I didn't mention it. But the Ombudsmen are clued up.

Thanks.  Some of the Ombudsmen are really good, but some of the others...

I did mention to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS so hopefully that will run in my favour. Many thanks for mentioning this earlier in the thread, I suspect this information will be invaluable.

Although I don't know if precedent happens in the FOS, it may be worth sending them a link to the post with that case decision - if a colleague upheld it, they may feel more inclined to do the same

I don't think I would be able to submit it as evidence now anyway since the deadline for submitting evidence passed a while ago.  I appreciate the suggestion though.

ForumUser7

Bridlington1 said:

ForumUser7 said:

Bridlington1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Success at last (in this case at least).

Excellent outcome!

Did you highlight to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS (e.g. as per my post earlier in the thread) yourself, or did the Ombudsman come up with that on their own?

I wonder why the investigator didn't apply that test in the first place.

I didn't mention it. But the Ombudsmen are clued up.

Thanks.  Some of the Ombudsmen are really good, but some of the others...

I did mention to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS so hopefully that will run in my favour. Many thanks for mentioning this earlier in the thread, I suspect this information will be invaluable.

Although I don't know if precedent happens in the FOS, it may be worth sending them a link to the post with that case decision - if a colleague upheld it, they may feel more inclined to do the same

I don't think I would be able to submit it as evidence now anyway since the deadline for submitting evidence passed a while ago.  I appreciate the suggestion though.

When I've used the FOS, I've found they do accept further comments generally - it may be worth sending it across anyway, not stating it is evidence, just saying you saw it - and then it's up to them whether or not they'll look at it, I'd be surprised if they didn't but as you've said, the evidence deadline has passed so they would be perfectly allowed not to if they were so inclined.

masonic

Bridlington1 said:

ForumUser7 said:

Bridlington1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Section62 said:

Ed-1 said:

Success at last (in this case at least).

Excellent outcome!

Did you highlight to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS (e.g. as per my post earlier in the thread) yourself, or did the Ombudsman come up with that on their own?

I wonder why the investigator didn't apply that test in the first place.

I didn't mention it. But the Ombudsmen are clued up.

Thanks.  Some of the Ombudsmen are really good, but some of the others...

I did mention to the Ombudsman the "clear, fair and not misleading" issue based on BCOBS so hopefully that will run in my favour. Many thanks for mentioning this earlier in the thread, I suspect this information will be invaluable.

Although I don't know if precedent happens in the FOS, it may be worth sending them a link to the post with that case decision - if a colleague upheld it, they may feel more inclined to do the same

I don't think I would be able to submit it as evidence now anyway since the deadline for submitting evidence passed a while ago.  I appreciate the suggestion though.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to resist sharing it with the mere observation that it looks remarkably similar to this complaint.

dcs34

Presumably we should expect Co-op to end their current referral offer pretty quickly, in order to amend their T&Cs properly in light of the ombudsman's decision. 

Although, given their past performance, maybe we shouldn't expect this much of them!

masonic

dcs34 said:

Presumably we should expect Co-op to end their current referral offer pretty quickly, in order to amend their T&Cs properly in light of the ombudsman's decision. 

Although, given their past performance, maybe we shouldn't expect this much of them!

Would probably be cheaper for them just to change their stance on refusing to pay the minority who come back for repeats.

WillPS

dcs34 said:

Presumably we should expect Co-op to end their current referral offer pretty quickly, in order to amend their T&Cs properly in light of the ombudsman's decision. 

Although, given their past performance, maybe we shouldn't expect this much of them!

The most recent offer includes this wording:

2.1.2 not have held a Co-operative Bank current account or smile current account since 01/11/2022. This includes: Current Account, Current Account Plus, Privilege, Privilege Premier, Everyday Extra, Student Account, Cashminder, smile or smilemore; 

This makes totally clear that you will not be eligible to be referred if you have had £125 before (since you must have had an account after that date in order to have received that money). It also implies they will accept applications from people who have previously received lower amounts, so long as all their accounts were closed no later than 31/10/2022.

masonic

WillPS said:

dcs34 said:

Presumably we should expect Co-op to end their current referral offer pretty quickly, in order to amend their T&Cs properly in light of the ombudsman's decision. 

Although, given their past performance, maybe we shouldn't expect this much of them!

The most recent offer includes this wording:

2.1.2 not have held a Co-operative Bank current account or smile current account since 01/11/2022. This includes: Current Account, Current Account Plus, Privilege, Privilege Premier, Everyday Extra, Student Account, Cashminder, smile or smilemore; 

This makes totally clear that you will not be eligible to be referred if you have had £125 before (since you must have had an account after that date in order to have received that money). It also implies they will accept applications from people who have previously received lower amounts, so long as all their accounts were closed no later than 31/10/2022.

That term indeed addresses the issue, as it excludes those who have held an account since 01/11/2022. Co-op has not taken issue with those who have had an incentive before (I've had several), just those who kept their account beyond the date they revamped and relaunched each offer. This has been an internal condition from the get-go, so it's good they've finally put it in the T&Cs.

soulsaver

Based on their ruling copied upthread, I think that if the FOS was doing their job they would insist that the Co Op acts fairly and pays ALL those that qualified for a 2nd RAF and pay them compensation for not paying out straight away?

The also need to look at their investigators' handling which was clearly woeful.