Starling Bank - CIFAS Marker For Bank Transfer - False Instrument(s) Paid In

kaMelo

The £100 is, I think, the banks final response, in which case whether you accept the £100 or not doesn't matter, they consider the matter closed.

The only way to take this further is via the ombudsman, if you have documented proof of costs incurred solely because of the banks error then it's likely the ombudsman will expect these to be reimbursed in addition to any compensation.

Anything that causes inconvenience but no direct financial loss is not so straight forward, whether they would view £100 as enough cimpensation for the inconvenience suffered is something only an Ombudsmen can answer.

Section62

TojoRalph said:

It is interesting that you say the ombudsman are not there to 'police' the banks, only to see that the bank addressed the complaint fairly. They/I had assumed (and hoped) that the ombudsman would look at the circumstances of the original decision to see if Starling Bank had followed due process or been cavalier and arbitrary in filing the CIFAS marker. From what you say the Ombudsman will acknowledge Starling Bank removed the marker and focus only on the Final Decision and whether the compensation offered was adequate? If that is the case, whilst keeping the Ombudsman complaint short and sweet, it will need to clearly detail the extent the marker has negatively impacted my relative?

Essentially, yes.  The question is whether £100 represents fair redress for the inconvenience the bank's error caused.  If multiple accounts with different providers are involved then I'd probably set that information out in a table as an attachment to the complaint (you can upload supporting documents) which would give basic details of each affected account, what happened to it, and how much time was taken to sort it out.

To be honest a recent experience with FOS has left me with a slightly jaundiced view of them - you may have more luck.  But as an example, in order to be able to better defend the bank in the case I had some involvement with, FOS asked for a schedule of all the phone calls with the bank the complaint was about, but ignored all the time and effort involved in dealing with another bank.  That was not in any sense a forensic investigation into what went wrong, rather seeking some facts to support what appeared to be a pre-judged decision and get the case off their desk.  I use the words "in order to be able to better defend the bank" intentionally because that is what appeared to be happening - everything the bank said was treated as gospel (despite glaring errors) whereas everything the complainant said was disbelieved unless satisfactory evidence was provided.

TojoRalph said:

Lastly, would you suggest they withdraw the £100 placed into their account by Starling Bank? My concern was that would be viewed as accepting the banks decision? The account is due to close in 3 days.  Thank you.

It doesn't make any difference to the complaint to FOS.  The twilight zone that FOS operate in means in effect you can accept the redress and then complain it wasn't enough.  In this case, as the account is closing anyway, withdrawing the money should not have an adverse effect on the compliant.  No court of law would deem the withdrawal of the money (in these circumstances) as acceptance of the bank's decision - although who knows what the FOS might make of it.

TojoRalph

kaMelo said:

The £100 is, I think, the banks final response, in which case whether you accept the £100 or not doesn't matter, they consider the matter closed.

The only way to take this further is via the ombudsman, if you have documented proof of costs incurred solely because of the banks error then it's likely the ombudsman will expect these to be reimbursed in addition to any compensation.

Anything that causes inconvenience but no direct financial loss is not so straight forward, whether they would view £100 as enough cimpensation for the inconvenience suffered is something only an Ombudsmen can answer.

That was indeed Starling Banks final (and only) response. They/we had zero expectation that there was any need for much dialogue as there was no evidence of any fraud or justification for the marker being placed, which perhaps explains the 10 day timeline between the complaint to Starling Bank being submitted and Starling Bank upholding the complaint.

Regards compensation, it seems very clear to me now that the Ombudsman does not give a hoot about the consequences to an individual of a banks actions in terms of stress, anxiety and time invested in dealing with things. Rather the Ombudsman views compensation only in terms of the financial impact of a banks actions. In this case all my relative cares about is Starling Bank being held accountable for their unfathomable actions, which as I understand it won't happen as the Ombudsman does not investigate a banks actions if the bank upholds the complaint. In my relatives case, they are comfortable financially, so all the fallout from Starling Banks actions was in the form of the associated grief. The next customer that Starling Bank do this to may of course not be so lucky, hence my relatives hope that there would be a degree of accountability.