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

phillw

Ed-1 said:

They're now relying on the clause 3.8 by claiming it's abuse of the offer to switch a second account in even if the points about eligible new customer and the scheme being an ongoing one weren't clear.

Are you claiming you aren't trying to abuse the offer?

phillw

TheBanker said:
If we (the bank) felt the complaint had been correctly dealt with internally, we would allow it to go to FOS irrespective of the amount involved. There was also a Treating Customers Fairly issue - if we gave someone money because they'd threatened to go to FOS, we should apply the same redress to other customers who'd made the same complaint but had accepted our decision and not taken the matter to FOS. 

I don't know what bank you worked at, but my experience of banks is that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

I usually put my case forward in a compelling way so that I don't have to go to FOS. Though the sums involved have always  been much tinier than the ones you later mention.

Ed-1

phillw said:

Ed-1 said:

They're now relying on the clause 3.8 by claiming it's abuse of the offer to switch a second account in even if the points about eligible new customer and the scheme being an ongoing one weren't clear.

Are you claiming you aren't trying to abuse the offer?

I'm trying to take part in the offer just like I took part in the last one.

Was Roger Federer abusing Wimbledon by taking part year after year after already winning the prize money once?

Dustybee

This is exactly what clause 3.8 states from the terms & conditions for the February 2023 offer:

We reserve the right to withhold any payment (or to reverse any payment already made) where we have reasonable grounds for suspecting you have sought to materially abuse or profiteer from the offer. For example this may arise if we have grounds for believing that you have sought to engage in a marketing campaign to solicit applications from individuals who are not from within your family or immediate circle of friends. 

I don't think it's helpful to take parts out of this out of context.

eskbanker

Dustybee said:

This is exactly what clause 3.8 states from the terms & conditions for the February 2023 offer:

We reserve the right to withhold any payment (or to reverse any payment already made) where we have reasonable grounds for suspecting you have sought to materially abuse or profiteer from the offer. For example this may arise if we have grounds for believing that you have sought to engage in a marketing campaign to solicit applications from individuals who are not from within your family or immediate circle of friends. 

I don't think it's helpful to take parts out of this out of context.

What are you suggesting has been taken out of context, and by whom?

TheBanker

phillw said:

TheBanker said:
If we (the bank) felt the complaint had been correctly dealt with internally, we would allow it to go to FOS irrespective of the amount involved. There was also a Treating Customers Fairly issue - if we gave someone money because they'd threatened to go to FOS, we should apply the same redress to other customers who'd made the same complaint but had accepted our decision and not taken the matter to FOS. 

I don't know what bank you worked at, but my experience of banks is that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

I usually put my case forward in a compelling way so that I don't have to go to FOS. Though the sums involved have always  been much tinier than the ones you later mention.

Perhaps it's just that you had a valid complaint? If you had a valid complaint then we may have been more generous with the D&I to negate the need for a FOS complaint, but I was talking about complaints where we believed we'd fairly declined them. They would be allowed to progress to FOS if that's what the customer chose to do. We wouldn't settle them to avoid the FOS fee. 

I've worked for two banks that you will have heard of, and one you might not have heard of (although they are mentioned here occasionally). Now I work for a different bank you'll have heard of, but am not involved in complaint handling.

SwiftSuzie

Ed-1 said:

phillw said:

Ed-1 said:

They're now relying on the clause 3.8 by claiming it's abuse of the offer to switch a second account in even if the points about eligible new customer and the scheme being an ongoing one weren't clear.

Are you claiming you aren't trying to abuse the offer?

I'm trying to take part in the offer just like I took part in the last one.

Was Roger Federer abusing Wimbledon by taking part year after year after already winning the prize money once?

This is a flawed analogy. A more accurate one would be Roger Federer winning the prize money and then coming back the following week, running out onto Centre Court and demanding they pay him again. 

It completely mystifies me why obviously intelligent people invest so much time and effort into pulling a flanker which is an obvious abuse of an incentive offer aimed at securing serious long-term account holders by ducking and diving, closing accounts one day, reopening them the next etc. and then coming over all indignant when knocked back. What a faff. I could understand it more if thousands of pounds were involved but for buttons like £50 or even £125 ? Goodness me, life's too short. I can just imagine the "Oh God. We've got another one." reaction at the FOS.

I suppose the banks have themselves to blame by encouraging serial account jumping. 

Ed-1

SwiftSuzie said:

Ed-1 said:

phillw said:

Ed-1 said:

They're now relying on the clause 3.8 by claiming it's abuse of the offer to switch a second account in even if the points about eligible new customer and the scheme being an ongoing one weren't clear.

Are you claiming you aren't trying to abuse the offer?

I'm trying to take part in the offer just like I took part in the last one.

Was Roger Federer abusing Wimbledon by taking part year after year after already winning the prize money once?

This is a flawed analogy. A more accurate one would be Roger Federer winning the prize money and then coming back the following week, running out onto Centre Court and demanding they pay him again. 

It completely mystifies me why obviously intelligent people invest so much time and effort into pulling a flanker which is an obvious abuse of an incentive offer aimed at securing serious long-term account holders by ducking and diving, closing accounts one day, reopening them the next etc. and then coming over all indignant when knocked back. What a faff. I could understand it more if thousands of pounds were involved but for buttons like £50 or even £125 ? Goodness me, life's too short. I can just imagine the "Oh God. We've got another one." reaction at the FOS.

I suppose the banks have themselves to blame by encouraging serial account jumping. 

It's the principle. I've been told that Co-op have said the terms of the scheme show that it "is not for returning customers".

That is plainly untrue. The current terms showing at the moment say that those who haven't held any current account with Co-op or smile since November 2022 can qualify. Is someone who closed an account last October a returning customer? Yes. Should they qualify? According to the terms, yes.

It isn't hard to make terms clear. Imagine the trouble that would be caused if the laws of England were written as sloppily as Co-op's supposed legally binding terms.

flaneurs_lobster

I'm a serial switcher. I've made over £2K in the last year from switching bonuses. 

I got knocked back from my second Co-op bonus this year having got £125 in January. 

I'm with @SwiftSuzie on this one. I simply cannot be ar5ed with the process anymore and any further pursuit of my (obviously entitled to, obviously just gaming the system) second bonus is just borderline obsession on my part. 

I'd make that referral to the FOS after a negative adjudication subject to a nominal, refundable if you win, fee. Then see how many people would pursue it "on principle". 

Section62

flaneurs_lobster said:

I'd make that referral to the FOS after a negative adjudication subject to a nominal, refundable if you win, fee. Then see how many people would pursue it "on principle". 

Could you please clarify what you mean by that?

If someone takes their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service it will first be looked at by an 'investigator' (previously 'adjudicator').  If either party disagrees with the investigator's findings they can ask for the case to be passed to an ombudsman for a final decision.

The investigators are relatively low level staff and can make mistakes, especially with complex cases.  The ombudsmen are more senior/experienced staff.

In effect, asking for a case to go to final decision is a form of appeal against the decision of the investigator.  In cases where the ombudsman issues a final decision which differs from the investigator this is effectively confirmation the investigator made an error in coming to their decision.  There are quite a lot of cases like this.

So, is your suggestion that all cases where people ask the FOS to investigate should be subject to a nominal conditional fee, or only the cases where the complainant is effectively appealing against a decision made by a relatively low-level/low-experience member of staff?

If the latter, then I wouldn't have a huge problem with it (although it probably goes against principles of justice), but were FOS to do such a thing it would be vital for them to upgrade the role of the investigator so cases were only looked at by staff with a higher level of experience and ability so that errors in the initial findings were a very rare exception, rather than commonplace as they are now.  The service would therefore cost more to provide, meaning FOS would have to charge banks more per case.  I'm not sure they would be happy with that idea.

And if FOS didn't upgrade the role of investigator then they would simply be failing to provide a service where resolutions were "fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case".  For many people a 'fair' outcome would only be available to those complainants willing to pay for it.

There's also the small matter that if FOS get to keep the fee if the final decision goes against the complainant, the decisions of the ombudsman (employed by FOS) could hardly be considered impartial.  I rather suspect this might be why one of the reasons why FOS has been set up as a free service to the consumer.