Banks refusing/ignoring/sidestepping clear requests to register complaints via chat

WillPS

eskbanker said:

WillPS said:
My technique so far has been to open a complaint about the deliberate ignorance of the instruction to open a complaint, but sometimes they then open another 'feedback which you won't hear back about'(!!). I've got one complaint which I've insisted goes before an ombudsman where I had to ask 7 times for a complaint to be opened.

I will update the thread when I hear back from the ombudsman, but the investigator didn't really seem to pick up the ball with this aspect of my complaint (despite me repeatedly pointing back to it) so I'm not too optimistic.

It'll be interesting to see if FOS reject your case as invalid, as there have been previous threads about them doing so on the basis that complaint handling isn't a regulated activity and is therefore outside their remit.

There is a service failure at the core of all this - specifically I requested that they change a Barclaycard statement date such that the payment date falls no earlier than the first of the month. They confirmed they had done, but in fact nothing had changed. This was all masked by the peculiar way that Barclays determine statement generation - meaning that for several months the statement date fell in the new month despite nothing changing.

The worst case outcome will be to find that the compensation Barclaycard has already offered is fair, and the failure to acknowledge a complaint 6 times in an 18 hour period falls outside their remit.

masonic

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

eskbanker said:

WillPS said:
My technique so far has been to open a complaint about the deliberate ignorance of the instruction to open a complaint, but sometimes they then open another 'feedback which you won't hear back about'(!!). I've got one complaint which I've insisted goes before an ombudsman where I had to ask 7 times for a complaint to be opened.

I will update the thread when I hear back from the ombudsman, but the investigator didn't really seem to pick up the ball with this aspect of my complaint (despite me repeatedly pointing back to it) so I'm not too optimistic.

It'll be interesting to see if FOS reject your case as invalid, as there have been previous threads about them doing so on the basis that complaint handling isn't a regulated activity and is therefore outside their remit.

Could you share a link?
If it's true, all banks are free to close all their complaint channels, get rid of their complaints departments (and part of customer service department as well) and stop reporting number of complaints to FCA as there is none?

I've seen a couple of threads here where this was the case, although I probably wouldn't be able to find them again now.

Complaint handling processes are a matter for the FCA and the FOS cannot award punitive damages for non-compliance. They can only award compensation for the overall impact the matter has on the consumer. If the substance of the complaint is that there was a technical breach, then there may be nothing in the complaint the FOS can consider. FOS can flag concerns to the FCA, but this won't influence the outcome of an individual complaint.

Hmm.. still can't wrap my head around - if one complains about the bank limiting their options to complain and the bank refuses to do anything about that, one can still escalate to the FOS but they cannot do anything about it, is that what you're saying? Sounds like Catch 22 then.

The FOS is not a regulator so it cannot make the bank set up new complaints channels. If the failure to let you complain through a particular medium hasn't in itself caused you financial loss or distress and inconvenience beyond the frustrations we can all reasonably expect in day to day life, then there wouldn't be any substance to the complaint that they could address.

You would be entitled to ask for the cost of a first class stamp, a couple of sheets of paper and an envelope to be added on to your compensation for whatever it is you are complaining about, but the necessity of incurring these costs to put your complaint to Barclays isn't itself a complaint the FOS can hear.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread (I think), whether or not Barclays accepts you have complained by expressing a dissatisfaction through an electronic medium, you have made a complaint and could escalate it if it isn't addressed within 8 weeks.

Sounds like anything that didn't cause me financial loss or serious distress can be ignored by the bank in a hope I won't escalate after 8 weeks.

Not really. Even if you just get an apology or your complaint isn't upheld, then it will cost the bank a case fee. That is unless your complaint is considered vexatious, which it might be if dissatisfaction with their complaints procedure is all you have (i.e. no cause to actually use it).

If nothing more than dissatisfaction with the complaints procedure, then that's not really any better than complaining because you don't like their interest rates, branding or opening hours. Easily solved by exercising your freedom of choice.

I get your point about a case fee - you think the banks won't usually bluntly ignore complaints willing to avoid that, right?

A real example: I wasn't happy that in 2025 HSBC still have no option to manage payees in their app and went to their chat to make a complaint. They offered me help but did not register a complaint.
I made a formal complaint via Resolver and their final response was "you were not online to receive a reference number so it's not our fault".

So technically there is no financial loss or huge inconvenience.
On the other hand, the channel they provide for complaints is not fit for purpose.
And because that channel is the only way to resolve issues with the bank, I'm not happy with the way it is because it seriously limits my options to make a complaint.
And if we remind ourselves that the complaint procedure was established not because the banks are soo helpful.. but if there is no real way to enforce that, it means nothing.
And almost every bank does that nowadays, no freedom of choice here I'm afraid.

You need to put together a case about how you were inconvenienced in your day to day banking activities through the deficiencies in the service (e.g. what you needed to do and what the impact of not being able to do it was). Then it is a complaint about a regulatory service. The impact that it had on you can be used to arrive at a distress and inconvenience payment.

For example, "Dear HSBC, I cannot believe that in 2025 you still don't have the option to manage payees in your app. I wanted to delete a payee I wasn't using any more, and to my horror, I had to open a web browser, log in to internet banking and do it there. I estimate this took me 30 seconds longer than it would have done if I could have done it directly within the app."

Potentially, when the complaint handler has finished laughing, they might offer you a fiver. And that would be a generous offer I'd recommend you take.

I appreciate your humour but you miss a couple of things here:
1. It is a shame HSBC pushes their customers to mobile app and yet it lacks basic functionality.
2. More importantly, I have a right to complaint and the bank denied to register my complaint using a rubbish excuse. That is serious. Next time they'll do the same even if the matter is much more important, just because they can.

It is a shame that HSBC's app isn't very good. But if a good app matters to you then you can choose a better bank. Probably every bank will have minor things that you wish were better, so a compromise must be struck on some level. I have not witnessed any attempt to be pushed to the app from online banking in my ~15 years as a HSBC customer.

Customers indeed have the right to make even frivolous complaints, and it is worth bearing in mind that ultimately they do so at the expense of the bank's other customers. HSBC should have responded to your complaint with "I'm sorry you feel that way, we're always developing the app and will take your feedback into consideration. We can help you switch to another account if you remain unsatisfied". So it is disappointing that instead of following up with you when they couldn't come back to you with that reference number, they just let it drop. Big mistake, as customers who are wont to formalise trivial dissatisfactions often will take a firm to task and cost them more than it would have taken to simply issue a meaningful response or some go away money in the first instance. It is really for the bank to use best endeavours to diffuse such situations. HSBC clearly didn't manage that in this instance. They now risk the FOS agreeing to look into the complaint about not being able to edit payees in the app.

If you ever have a much more important complaint, I don't think you should be unduly pessimistic about it being treated the same. Even though the fable of the boy who cried wolf has some truth to it, a past history of making trivial complaints should not prejudice a subsequent serious one.

Ulrich

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

eskbanker said:

WillPS said:
My technique so far has been to open a complaint about the deliberate ignorance of the instruction to open a complaint, but sometimes they then open another 'feedback which you won't hear back about'(!!). I've got one complaint which I've insisted goes before an ombudsman where I had to ask 7 times for a complaint to be opened.

I will update the thread when I hear back from the ombudsman, but the investigator didn't really seem to pick up the ball with this aspect of my complaint (despite me repeatedly pointing back to it) so I'm not too optimistic.

It'll be interesting to see if FOS reject your case as invalid, as there have been previous threads about them doing so on the basis that complaint handling isn't a regulated activity and is therefore outside their remit.

Could you share a link?
If it's true, all banks are free to close all their complaint channels, get rid of their complaints departments (and part of customer service department as well) and stop reporting number of complaints to FCA as there is none?

I've seen a couple of threads here where this was the case, although I probably wouldn't be able to find them again now.

Complaint handling processes are a matter for the FCA and the FOS cannot award punitive damages for non-compliance. They can only award compensation for the overall impact the matter has on the consumer. If the substance of the complaint is that there was a technical breach, then there may be nothing in the complaint the FOS can consider. FOS can flag concerns to the FCA, but this won't influence the outcome of an individual complaint.

Hmm.. still can't wrap my head around - if one complains about the bank limiting their options to complain and the bank refuses to do anything about that, one can still escalate to the FOS but they cannot do anything about it, is that what you're saying? Sounds like Catch 22 then.

The FOS is not a regulator so it cannot make the bank set up new complaints channels. If the failure to let you complain through a particular medium hasn't in itself caused you financial loss or distress and inconvenience beyond the frustrations we can all reasonably expect in day to day life, then there wouldn't be any substance to the complaint that they could address.

You would be entitled to ask for the cost of a first class stamp, a couple of sheets of paper and an envelope to be added on to your compensation for whatever it is you are complaining about, but the necessity of incurring these costs to put your complaint to Barclays isn't itself a complaint the FOS can hear.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread (I think), whether or not Barclays accepts you have complained by expressing a dissatisfaction through an electronic medium, you have made a complaint and could escalate it if it isn't addressed within 8 weeks.

Sounds like anything that didn't cause me financial loss or serious distress can be ignored by the bank in a hope I won't escalate after 8 weeks.

Not really. Even if you just get an apology or your complaint isn't upheld, then it will cost the bank a case fee. That is unless your complaint is considered vexatious, which it might be if dissatisfaction with their complaints procedure is all you have (i.e. no cause to actually use it).

If nothing more than dissatisfaction with the complaints procedure, then that's not really any better than complaining because you don't like their interest rates, branding or opening hours. Easily solved by exercising your freedom of choice.

I get your point about a case fee - you think the banks won't usually bluntly ignore complaints willing to avoid that, right?

A real example: I wasn't happy that in 2025 HSBC still have no option to manage payees in their app and went to their chat to make a complaint. They offered me help but did not register a complaint.
I made a formal complaint via Resolver and their final response was "you were not online to receive a reference number so it's not our fault".

So technically there is no financial loss or huge inconvenience.
On the other hand, the channel they provide for complaints is not fit for purpose.
And because that channel is the only way to resolve issues with the bank, I'm not happy with the way it is because it seriously limits my options to make a complaint.
And if we remind ourselves that the complaint procedure was established not because the banks are soo helpful.. but if there is no real way to enforce that, it means nothing.
And almost every bank does that nowadays, no freedom of choice here I'm afraid.

You need to put together a case about how you were inconvenienced in your day to day banking activities through the deficiencies in the service (e.g. what you needed to do and what the impact of not being able to do it was). Then it is a complaint about a regulatory service. The impact that it had on you can be used to arrive at a distress and inconvenience payment.

For example, "Dear HSBC, I cannot believe that in 2025 you still don't have the option to manage payees in your app. I wanted to delete a payee I wasn't using any more, and to my horror, I had to open a web browser, log in to internet banking and do it there. I estimate this took me 30 seconds longer than it would have done if I could have done it directly within the app."

Potentially, when the complaint handler has finished laughing, they might offer you a fiver. And that would be a generous offer I'd recommend you take.

I appreciate your humour but you miss a couple of things here:
1. It is a shame HSBC pushes their customers to mobile app and yet it lacks basic functionality.
2. More importantly, I have a right to complaint and the bank denied to register my complaint using a rubbish excuse. That is serious. Next time they'll do the same even if the matter is much more important, just because they can.

It is a shame that HSBC's app isn't very good. But if a good app matters to you then you can choose a better bank. Probably every bank will have minor things that you wish were better, so a compromise must be struck on some level.

Customers indeed have the right to make even frivolous complaints, and it is worth bearing in mind that ultimately they do so at the expense of the bank's other customers. HSBC should have responded to your complaint with "I'm sorry you feel that way, we're always developing the app and will take your feedback into consideration. We can help you switch to another account if you remain unsatisfied". So it is disappointing that instead of following up with you when they couldn't come back to you with that reference number, they just let it drop. Big mistake, as customers who are wont to formalise trivial dissatisfactions often will take a firm to task and cost them more than it would have taken to simply issue a meaningful response or some go away money in the first instance. It is really for the bank to use best endeavours to diffuse such situations. HSBC clearly didn't manage that in this instance.

If you ever have a serious complaint, I don't think you should be unduly pessimistic about it being treated the same. Even though the fable of the boy who cried wolf has some truth to it, a past history of making trivial complaints should not prejudice a subsequent serious one.

2 things again
1. I won't change bank solely because of the app BUT I'll remember their attitude.
2. (Again, much more important) Everything starts with small things. The broken windows effect. And if one player goes downhill, the whole lot often slowly follows. That makes the previous thing hard to implement or almost meaningless.

Don't quite get your "at the expense of the bank's other customers", why?

masonic

Ulrich said:

Don't quite get your "at the expense of the bank's other customers", why?

The customers of a business ultimately bear the cost of expenses associated with running that business. Such costs just get added to the margins.

Nasqueron

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

masonic said:

Ulrich said:

eskbanker said:

WillPS said:
My technique so far has been to open a complaint about the deliberate ignorance of the instruction to open a complaint, but sometimes they then open another 'feedback which you won't hear back about'(!!). I've got one complaint which I've insisted goes before an ombudsman where I had to ask 7 times for a complaint to be opened.

I will update the thread when I hear back from the ombudsman, but the investigator didn't really seem to pick up the ball with this aspect of my complaint (despite me repeatedly pointing back to it) so I'm not too optimistic.

It'll be interesting to see if FOS reject your case as invalid, as there have been previous threads about them doing so on the basis that complaint handling isn't a regulated activity and is therefore outside their remit.

Could you share a link?
If it's true, all banks are free to close all their complaint channels, get rid of their complaints departments (and part of customer service department as well) and stop reporting number of complaints to FCA as there is none?

I've seen a couple of threads here where this was the case, although I probably wouldn't be able to find them again now.

Complaint handling processes are a matter for the FCA and the FOS cannot award punitive damages for non-compliance. They can only award compensation for the overall impact the matter has on the consumer. If the substance of the complaint is that there was a technical breach, then there may be nothing in the complaint the FOS can consider. FOS can flag concerns to the FCA, but this won't influence the outcome of an individual complaint.

Hmm.. still can't wrap my head around - if one complains about the bank limiting their options to complain and the bank refuses to do anything about that, one can still escalate to the FOS but they cannot do anything about it, is that what you're saying? Sounds like Catch 22 then.

The FOS is not a regulator so it cannot make the bank set up new complaints channels. If the failure to let you complain through a particular medium hasn't in itself caused you financial loss or distress and inconvenience beyond the frustrations we can all reasonably expect in day to day life, then there wouldn't be any substance to the complaint that they could address.

You would be entitled to ask for the cost of a first class stamp, a couple of sheets of paper and an envelope to be added on to your compensation for whatever it is you are complaining about, but the necessity of incurring these costs to put your complaint to Barclays isn't itself a complaint the FOS can hear.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread (I think), whether or not Barclays accepts you have complained by expressing a dissatisfaction through an electronic medium, you have made a complaint and could escalate it if it isn't addressed within 8 weeks.

Sounds like anything that didn't cause me financial loss or serious distress can be ignored by the bank in a hope I won't escalate after 8 weeks.

Not really. Even if you just get an apology or your complaint isn't upheld, then it will cost the bank a case fee. That is unless your complaint is considered vexatious, which it might be if dissatisfaction with their complaints procedure is all you have (i.e. no cause to actually use it).

If nothing more than dissatisfaction with the complaints procedure, then that's not really any better than complaining because you don't like their interest rates, branding or opening hours. Easily solved by exercising your freedom of choice.

I get your point about a case fee - you think the banks won't usually bluntly ignore complaints willing to avoid that, right?

A real example: I wasn't happy that in 2025 HSBC still have no option to manage payees in their app and went to their chat to make a complaint. They offered me help but did not register a complaint.
I made a formal complaint via Resolver and their final response was "you were not online to receive a reference number so it's not our fault".

So technically there is no financial loss or huge inconvenience.
On the other hand, the channel they provide for complaints is not fit for purpose.
And because that channel is the only way to resolve issues with the bank, I'm not happy with the way it is because it seriously limits my options to make a complaint.
And if we remind ourselves that the complaint procedure was established not because the banks are soo helpful.. but if there is no real way to enforce that, it means nothing.
And almost every bank does that nowadays, no freedom of choice here I'm afraid.

You need to put together a case about how you were inconvenienced in your day to day banking activities through the deficiencies in the service (e.g. what you needed to do and what the impact of not being able to do it was). Then it is a complaint about a regulatory service. The impact that it had on you can be used to arrive at a distress and inconvenience payment.

For example, "Dear HSBC, I cannot believe that in 2025 you still don't have the option to manage payees in your app. I wanted to delete a payee I wasn't using any more, and to my horror, I had to open a web browser, log in to internet banking and do it there. I estimate this took me 30 seconds longer than it would have done if I could have done it directly within the app."

Potentially, when the complaint handler has finished laughing, they might offer you a fiver. And that would be a generous offer I'd recommend you take.

I appreciate your humour but you miss a couple of things here:
1. It is a shame HSBC pushes their customers to mobile app and yet it lacks basic functionality.
2. More importantly, I have a right to complaint and the bank denied to register my complaint using a rubbish excuse. That is serious. Next time they'll do the same even if the matter is much more important, just because they can.

It is a shame that HSBC's app isn't very good. But if a good app matters to you then you can choose a better bank. Probably every bank will have minor things that you wish were better, so a compromise must be struck on some level.

Customers indeed have the right to make even frivolous complaints, and it is worth bearing in mind that ultimately they do so at the expense of the bank's other customers. HSBC should have responded to your complaint with "I'm sorry you feel that way, we're always developing the app and will take your feedback into consideration. We can help you switch to another account if you remain unsatisfied". So it is disappointing that instead of following up with you when they couldn't come back to you with that reference number, they just let it drop. Big mistake, as customers who are wont to formalise trivial dissatisfactions often will take a firm to task and cost them more than it would have taken to simply issue a meaningful response or some go away money in the first instance. It is really for the bank to use best endeavours to diffuse such situations. HSBC clearly didn't manage that in this instance.

If you ever have a serious complaint, I don't think you should be unduly pessimistic about it being treated the same. Even though the fable of the boy who cried wolf has some truth to it, a past history of making trivial complaints should not prejudice a subsequent serious one.

2 things again
1. I won't change bank solely because of the app BUT I'll remember their attitude.
2. (Again, much more important) Everything starts with small things. The broken windows effect. And if one player goes downhill, the whole lot often slowly follows. That makes the previous thing hard to implement or almost meaningless.

Don't quite get your "at the expense of the bank's other customers", why?

Submitting a complaint because you don't like the app means the bank may get charged by the FOS if it goes there, that cost then goes onto customers of the bank. It's like all the people jumping on PPI or the car commission thing, all complaints cost money, the finance co will simply pass on the costs via higher fees, lower interest, worse service etc. The FOS will almost certainly dismiss the case though as it's not their remit to make banks change app functionality and it's clearly vexatious.

flaneurs_lobster

If I want to make a formal complaint about a bank's app because:

I don't like the font

or the background colour

or the logo

should I submit one combined complaint or three separate ones? 

Ulrich

It's not a complaint via chat to a bank per se but think it's very similar.
Trading 212 (investment broker?) only accepts complaints via chat or their web form.
However, FCA lists complaints@trading212.com as a valid email address for that.
Apart from that, Resolver has Trading 212 as a company people can complaint to using the service.

In their chat I expressed my dissatisfaction about some things Trading 212 does and then to the customer service reps via email. They kept saying they'll take that as a feedback for further improvement despite me showing them the current state exposes me to a financial risk.
I ended up making a complaint via Resolver just before New Year BUT Trading 212 replied they cannot identify me by email address used (as Resolver generates a new email for each case and everything goes through that email) despite me providing them my account number etc.
A week ago I emailed the same complaint to complaints@trading212.com and got no response.
Only after yesterday when I mentioned to their customer service that lack of acknowledgment is not a good complaints handling practice they now come back to me saying they "will log a formal complaint on your behalf" and have 8 weeks to respond.

I wouldn't say they make it easy to complain, pretty much the opposite.

HillStreetBlues

Needed to open a complaint with HSBC (credit card) done via chat, just asked once and opened.
5 mins later received e-mail confirming complaint.  Minute after that a text from a member of the complaints team stating they are looking at it.

Update: within 24 hours had a call from complaints team, complaint upheld and happy with outcome.

born_again

flaneurs_lobster said:

If I want to make a formal complaint about a bank's app because:

I don't like the font

or the background colour

or the logo

should I submit one combined complaint or three separate ones? 

One.
In effect this type of complaint would be counted as feedback. As you are just passing your opinion on their product. Just the same as people who complain about hold music.

FOS would do nothing about it as It is outside their remit.
So long as the bank is not breaching rules with their internal processes or products. Then they will dismiss it.

WillPS

I've heard back from the ombudsman. They have not upheld my complaint. I'll post a link to the full decision when it's posted but of note is this:

I can see that there were gaps between agent responses, which I appreciate must’ve been

frustrating for Mr S. Barclays has explained that the chat function isn’t live, and it was

necessary for agents to look back over previous chat conversations to investigate matters.

Nevertheless, I can see that Mr S had to ask for a complaint to be logged more than once

and I appreciate that this would’ve caused him frustration and inconvenience.

The implication being that Barclays would have responded to me if I'd just given them a chance, which I'm confident is complete rubbish as the chat sessions had clearly been closed each time

With hindsight @masonic 's suggestion of just waiting for the complaint to hit the 8 week threshold and referring straight to the ombudsman would perhaps have yielded a more definitive result.