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

Alex9384

WillPS said:

Why is internal evidence even being considered? How are you as a consumer supposed to understand offer periods adequately if the bank had to resort to an *internal* document to back themselves up in an offer they presented to customers?

Right? That's the same thing as with "New customer".
Their T&C say absolutely nothing about who is and who isn't a new customer. Only after my complaint, they gave me a closer specification of new customer, saying that it's someone who has never had an account with Coop. This still doesn't change the fact that this is not specified in their T&C. Isn't it reasonable to assume that you are a new customer if you don't hold any account with them, and then open a new one? It works that way with several banks, unless they add a clause that you can't have ever had an account (or switch bonus) with them ever before.

Alex9384

I think the very fact that someone else's complaint about the same issue has been upheld by FOS only shows how ambiguous this whole thing is.

Alex9384

phillw said:

A standard switch offer is one where you switch and you get money, without a referral. Yes, you are making up nonsense.

You don't get what I'm saying. Of course it's a nonsense, because I'm using Coop logic, not mine.

So once again, read slowly:

Coop can simply drop the referral part from their T&C and start offering money for just switching, and claim it's still the same offer with amended T&C, because it was a switch offer before as well. Not being a standard switch offer doesn't mean it wasn't a switch offer.

Bridlington1

Thanks for all of your replies so far. Apologies for not replying sooner, it's been a rather busy week for me so have only just read this thread.

Dustybee said:

I have had a very quick decision from the investigator at the FOS on my complaint.  I had a referral payment of £125 in November 2022 and applied again in February 2023 after the scheme "ended" in December 2022. The complaint was submitted on 31st March with a very detailed summary and supporting document attachments.  Anyway, disappointingly the decision has gone the way of the Co-operative Bank (C refers to me, the complainant & B is the Co-operative Bank): 




I can't think there is any more evidence to submit to take it for an Ombudsman decision or even if that's worth it.  Interested in your views and opinions.

I would say the best evidence you can provide at this stage is evidence of people receiving payments under both the £50 offer and the £125 offer. For me it seems quite clear to me that Co-op were initially treating the £50 and £125 offers as separate entities given that there have been reports on this forum of people receiving a £50 payment, then switching out before the amount was upped to £125, switching back in and successfully receiving £125.

I would imagine that not everyone who received both payments will have posted this information in the £125 Co-op refer-a-friend offer thread, hence why I created this thread. The more people who post that they have received both payments, the stronger the evidence for this point becomes. Hence why I would be most grateful if these people could post this information in this thread.

Moreover from a series of messages exchanged between myself and one of our fellow forumites there are at least 2 people who took this issue to the FOS have now had their case upheld by their case handlers and Co-op has agreed to pay them the £125. If these offers were one and the same, then why would Co-op have agreed with the case handlers and agreed to pay them both £125?

I shall therefore press on with my case largely because I am of the view that these were separate offers, but also because I would imagine I am one of the first to take this matter to an ombudsman for a final decision, i.e. not had the mater settled by a case handler. The outcome would set a precedent that would hopefully clear up any ambiguity surrounding the Co-op refer-a-friend offer.

WillPS

Bridlington1 said:

Thanks for all of your replies so far. Apologies for not replying sooner, it's been a rather busy week for me so have only just read this thread.

Dustybee said:

I have had a very quick decision from the investigator at the FOS on my complaint.  I had a referral payment of £125 in November 2022 and applied again in February 2023 after the scheme "ended" in December 2022. The complaint was submitted on 31st March with a very detailed summary and supporting document attachments.  Anyway, disappointingly the decision has gone the way of the Co-operative Bank (C refers to me, the complainant & B is the Co-operative Bank): 




I can't think there is any more evidence to submit to take it for an Ombudsman decision or even if that's worth it.  Interested in your views and opinions.

I would say the best evidence you can provide at this stage is evidence of people receiving payments under both the £50 offer and the £125 offer. For me it seems quite clear to me that Co-op were initially treating the £50 and £125 offers as separate entities given that there have been reports on this forum of people receiving a £50 payment, then switching out before the amount was upped to £125, switching back in and successfully receiving £125.

I've said this before but I think this is a very poor argument. The Bank would simply argue that these payments were in error - there's no requirement that banks ensure that all customers benefit in the same way when a mistake is made.

Concentrate on the expectation the bank had set for you individually with the language they used with regards to the offers.

bristolleedsfan

Bridlington1 said:

• in November 2022 they amended the terms of the scheme further and increased the amount to be awarded to £125 for both parties.  In addition, they also amended the definition of the term ‘new customer’ enabling customers who had held an account since June 2021 (but did not currently hold an account with the Bank) to be eligible.
• on 4 November 2022 they received a bank switch request from the Royal Bank of Scotland and your account was switched out on 11 November 2022, and the account closed on 14 November 2022.
• on 15 November 2022 they received a new application for a current account from yourself and this account was opened on 16 November 2022 and on 17 November 2022 they started the process to switch in your account from Lloyds Bank.
• 
  

The above reads that when Co-operative Bank increased refer a friend offer from £50 to £125 on 1 November 2022  you were an existing current account customer = did not meet terms and conditions for £125 payment ....

Section62

WillPS said:

Dustybee said:

Why is internal evidence even being considered? How are you as a consumer supposed to understand offer periods adequately if the bank had to resort to an *internal* document to back themselves up in an offer they presented to customers?

I don't think the problem is with there being "internal evidence" per se, the problem is the "internal evidence" appears to conflict with what customers were led to believe (or were told).

Co-op's evidence should consist of the public-facing information, because that information is what the customers would see when making a decision whether to open an account and/or switch etc.

Banks have an obligation to communicate infomation (including about offers and account opening) clearly and unambiguously. This is set out in the FCA handbook.

See FCA Principles 6 and 7, and BCOBS2

BCOBS 2.1.1

BCOBS 2.2.1

BCOBS 2.2.2

E.g.

A firm or other provider must take reasonable steps to ensure that a communication, financial promotion or payment service or electronic money promotion is fair, clear and not misleading.

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/BCOBS/2/?view=chapter

That the investigator has had to rely on "internal evidence" to understand what Co-op intended to offer is effectively proof that the public-facing information alone fails the test of "fair, clear and not misleading".

Personally I'd ask for a final decision from the ombudsman using BCOBS2 as additional information, and highlight the need for the investigator to see "internal evidence" to understand the situation with the offer.

Alex9384

Section62 said:

Co-op's evidence should consist of the public-facing information, because that information is what the customers would see when making a decision whether to open an account and/or switch etc.

Banks have an obligation to communicate infomation (including about offers and account opening) clearly and unambiguously. This is set out in the FCA handbook.

That the investigator has had to rely on "internal evidence" to understand what Co-op intended to offer is effectively proof that the public-facing information alone fails the test of "fair, clear and not misleading".

Personally I'd ask for a final decision from the ombudsman using BCOBS2 as additional information, and highlight the need for the investigator to see "internal evidence" to understand the situation with the offer.

Thanks. This is a useful and helpful post, unlike some others siding with Coop all the time, no matter what, even if they're obviously the ones who messed up with their poorly written T&C.

Coop T&Cs seriously led me to believe that I was eligible. I met all their criteria as per their T&C. I even asked other people, told them I had one bonus in July 2022, but not a single person thought I was not eligible. Even Coop supporters in this thread use information not from T&C but the ones that were revealed later, either by Coop or the FOS.


Out of curiosity, I checked some T&Cs of other banks as they all usually include the clause about "only one payment".

As an example:

NatWest

"You can only benefit from this offer once, meaning that even if you apply, successfully open an account, and meet the conditions of this offer for more than one eligible account, you’ll only receive one payment."

Yes, the meaning is clearly explained. Only one account and once you receive payment, you won't get another one from this offer. That doesn't mean you can only get one bonus in a lifetime. NatWest still allows you get another bonus, as long as your last one was before 1 Oct 2017. Obviously, "this offer" is the one currently advertised, rather than the whole switch offer scheme.

Halifax
Only one offer is available per customer. Joint accounts will only be eligible for one payment.

Only one offer per customer! And yet, I had a switch bonus from Halifax in 2018 and another one in 2021, and it wasn't an error. Again, this clearly means that "one offer" is the one currently advertised, not the whole switch offer scheme, even though there is some cut off date for eligibility, based on when you got the last one.

Santander
The cashback payment will only be made once. Product eligibility applies. This is a limited offer which applies to requests to switch received from 23 January 2023 and can be withdrawn by Santander without notice. Anyone who has benefitted from a previous Santander switch offer will not be eligible.

Obviously, I would not try this one now, as I benefited from their previous offer.

And now Coop:

3.6 The Recommended Friend is entitled to only one payment even if they switch more than one account to us or if more than one Recommender refers them.

OK, only one payment. In what time period? For what exactly? For this offer? For all offers? For whole scheme? Oh yes, I forgot, Coop don't know the difference between scheme and individual offers within the same scheme, which have different cut off dates, so who could know... It really must be very hard to add that tiny bit of additional info, to make it clear it's only once in a lifetime.

Bridlington1

WillPS said:

Bridlington1 said:

Thanks for all of your replies so far. Apologies for not replying sooner, it's been a rather busy week for me so have only just read this thread.

Dustybee said:

I have had a very quick decision from the investigator at the FOS on my complaint.  I had a referral payment of £125 in November 2022 and applied again in February 2023 after the scheme "ended" in December 2022. The complaint was submitted on 31st March with a very detailed summary and supporting document attachments.  Anyway, disappointingly the decision has gone the way of the Co-operative Bank (C refers to me, the complainant & B is the Co-operative Bank): 




I can't think there is any more evidence to submit to take it for an Ombudsman decision or even if that's worth it.  Interested in your views and opinions.

I would say the best evidence you can provide at this stage is evidence of people receiving payments under both the £50 offer and the £125 offer. For me it seems quite clear to me that Co-op were initially treating the £50 and £125 offers as separate entities given that there have been reports on this forum of people receiving a £50 payment, then switching out before the amount was upped to £125, switching back in and successfully receiving £125.

I've said this before but I think this is a very poor argument. The Bank would simply argue that these payments were in error - there's no requirement that banks ensure that all customers benefit in the same way when a mistake is made.

Concentrate on the expectation the bank had set for you individually with the language they used with regards to the offers.

Good point well made. Though I feel it wouldn't do any harm to include this line of reasoning as a supporting argument.

Please feel free to argue against any point I put forward on this thread, it helps me to anticipate exactly what Co-op's counter arguments will be and gives me chance to add counter counter arguments to my FOS case.

WillPS said:

Dustybee said:

Why is internal evidence even being considered? How are you as a consumer supposed to understand offer periods adequately if the bank had to resort to an *internal* document to back themselves up in an offer they presented to customers?

I don't think the problem is with there being "internal evidence" per se, the problem is the "internal evidence" appears to conflict with what customers were led to believe (or were told).

Co-op's evidence should consist of the public-facing information, because that information is what the customers would see when making a decision whether to open an account and/or switch etc.

Banks have an obligation to communicate infomation (including about offers and account opening) clearly and unambiguously. This is set out in the FCA handbook.

See FCA Principles 6 and 7, and BCOBS2

BCOBS 2.1.1

BCOBS 2.2.1

BCOBS 2.2.2

E.g.

A firm or other provider must take reasonable steps to ensure that a communication, financial promotion or payment service or electronic money promotion is fair, clear and not misleading.

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/BCOBS/2/?view=chapter

That the investigator has had to rely on "internal evidence" to understand what Co-op intended to offer is effectively proof that the public-facing information alone fails the test of "fair, clear and not misleading".

Personally I'd ask for a final decision from the ombudsman using BCOBS2 as additional information, and highlight the need for the investigator to see "internal evidence" to understand the situation with the offer.

Many thanks for this, a very good idea. I shall shift gears and pursue this line of reasoning.  

As you can probably tell by my earlier posts I'm certainly a novice when it comes to legal matters, particularly with regards to the ins and outs of the FCA so it looks like I shall be doing some digging into this over the next week.

My case could run something along the lines of:

Co-op's information were misleading in the November Ts&Cs as the offer looked very much like a new offer, having removed the terms which defined what a new customer was and raising the offer amount to £125, which made me firmly believe that it was an entirely separate offer, rather than a mere "enhancement". Co-op could have made it clear that they considered this to be a continuation of the previous offer by including an offer start date, as many other banks have done before, or included an FAQ section which mentioned this but failed to do either of these.

The terms were were very vague in parts, particularly surrounding what would be considered a new customer. Co-op provided a cut-off date of 1 June 2021 in their old Ts&Cs yet failed to mention that they had amended the definition of the term ‘new customer’ enabling customers who had held an account since June 2021 (but did not currently hold an account with the Bank) to be eligible. They left this undefined.

They also failed to define what a main account was or specify that they would require the account to continue to be used as a main account post switch. The account could be my main account for paying out savings DDs for £1.25/mth (including tax refund) and therefore be considered my "main account" for that purpose.

Even the condition "The Recommended Friend is entitled to only one payment even if they switch more than one account to us or if more than one Recommender refers them" is open to some interpretation as it could be interpreted to mean that after someone has been referred to Co-op they could not receive further payments under the offer whilst acting as the "Recommender" whilst referring others.

youngretired

I would like to confirm that both my sister and husband were successful in getting their £125 incentives for switching and referring during the Nov/Dec 2022 offer by complaining to the FOS. It was the complaint handler that upheld the complaint and the Co-op agreed with his decision. Fortunately for my sister the same complaint handler dealt with hers a week later and so the Co-op agreed straight away without further investigation.

My husband referred my sister who switched, but she had already received the £50 incentive earlier in 2022. Their claims were declined using the 3.6 clause as the reason and they both had complained to the Co-op. They sent evidence of people having received both the £50 and £125 (names omitted), plus examples of other banks incentive wordings. Their argument was that the T&C's were ambiguous and if the clause 3.6 was clear, then why did it take the Co-op 3 weeks for my husbands final response and the full 8 weeks for my sister's.

I didn't post earlier, because I was awaiting confirmation that both my sister and husband had actually received the £125.