Shawbrook Bank - Ignores undelivered maturity emails- assumes you've received them.

HUMBUG

Section62 said:

HUMBUG said:

Eyeful said:

Your forgetting the T&C's which I posted in a previous email so here it is again. So fairness is of no relevance at the moment because they didn't comply with sending the SMS text and are therefore culpable. Why shouldn't I use the T&C's to get my money back? Organisations use T&C's themselves to avoid compensating their customers.

6.3. We will contact you by text message, by email and by Secure Message to give you information about your savings account or to let you know that a statement or document is ready to view in your account.

HUMBUG said:

VNX said:

It’s really not 

The Eyeful post was just irrelevant as per my previous post . The T&C's will decide the outcome.

Having done a fair few ombudsman complaints (for myself and helping others) I wouldn't be so sure the T&Cs will decide the outcome.

Your first hurdle will be getting the investigator/ombudsman to understand what you are complaining about, and why it is Shawbrooks's fault and not yours.  Not as easy as might be thought.

T&Cs are usually open to some interpretation, and this 6.3 is no exception.  You can read the "and" as meaning all three methods of communication will be used on each occasion - i.e. you'll get three messages per communication via three different channels - or it could simply mean those are the three communication channels Shawbrook prefer to use and they will contact you using any one of the three.

Your complaint would hinge on the first interpretation being the 'right' one, whereas both are equally valid and folk in the financial industry will probably lean towards the latter interpretation because frankly it would be a bit nonsensical for any financial services firm to always send out three messages saying the same thing.

You don't have to believe me, but you might want to read some of the threads on here about how the FoS dealt with complaints about the Co-op Bank's switching offer(s) to get a better idea of the approach they take where T&Cs are open to interpretation, even where the customer is absolutely sure there is only one correct interpretation.  FoS were initially quite helpful to the Co-op position.

One of the key principles for FoS is ensuring a 'fair' outcome.  This doesn't mean they will always side with the customer.  They will examine your own role in the situation and decide whether there is something you should or shouldn't have done.  Keeping your email address up to date is such an elementary requirement you'll be incredibly lucky if FoS agree Shawbrook have done wrong according to 6.3, whilst also overlooking your responsibility to keep your details updated.

You would be asking for Shawbrook's feet to be held to the fire for not complying with the T&Cs, whilst a significant contribution to the outcome was the result of your own non compliance with the same T&Cs.  The FoS investigator/ombudsman will almost certainly take the view the T&Cs apply to both sides, because that is only fair.

Your post seems very logical but the T&C's are not very well defined and our partly contradictory.

For example, they say the following in clause 6.1.

"If you do not give us your up-to-date contact details as soon as they change, the security of your information could be put at risk."

They never explicitly say they will accept no responsibility for undelivered emails and the inability of the customer to respond to any actions mentioned in their emails.

As previous posters have implied , emails can be undelivered for a plethora of reasons and is not a very dependable process.

During the conversation with the complaints representative , I didn't complain about the 0.1% interest  as I knew that would be a waste of time , but it will be interesting to see how this plays out with the FOS regarding :

1. No process to deal with undelivered emails, whatever the reason.
2. T&C's are partly unclear concerning how Shawbrook communicates with their customers. 

happybagger

Excellent. So you have followed the complaints procedure and we can put this to bed on here, and you can update us all when you have the Ombudsman's ruling.

masonic

The email is just a reminder to check your online messages, so failure to keep it updated merely means you won't get that reminder (which may in any case not be received from time to time, as are the vagaries of the internet).

Your actual notification is deposited in your inbox of your online account, to which you can access at any time regardless of whether they hold the correct email address for you.

FOS is only able to consider complaints about regulated activities, so this email non-delivery issue might not be in scope, as regulated communications should never be made by email. It will be interesting to see how they respond.

HUMBUG

I think another interesting point regarding bounced emails is the security aspects. So it seems some banks, who don't action on undeliverable emails, have excused themselves of any security issues that may be related to bounced emails. 

It's never occurred to me before but maybe I should consider some of the email security aspects when choosing some of these online banks . Their interest rates are obviously better , but I think I'd prefer a bank that has some follow-up action as per below.

Anyhow , I will know more from those 9  banks I've already contacted . If they have follow-up procedures for returned email, I might opt for them instead.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Banks can and often do take action on undelivered emails, particularly when related to physical mail (letters) being returned undelivered. Banks may freeze accounts, restrict access, or take other measures to prevent fraud or security breaches when mail addressed to the account holder is returned, as this can be a red flag. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Frozen Accounts:

Banks may freeze an account immediately if mail, such as statements or notifications, is returned undelivered. This is a precautionary measure to prevent unauthorized access or fraudulent activity. 

Restrictions on Transactions:

Banks may also restrict certain types of transactions or access to the account until the issue with the mailing address is resolved. 

Security Measures:

Banks take these actions to protect their clients and themselves from potential fraud or security risks. Undelivered mail can indicate a potential address change that has not been updated, or it could be a sign that the account is being targeted by scammers. 

MeteredOut

You really need to stop relying on AI to make assertions. It can and does get things wrong - it basically crowd sourcing information from all sources made available to it as part of its model - and that includes large parts of the internet containing wrong or misleading information.

I'm not saying what you've pasted above is wrong, but you cannot assume it is correct without verification.

The response you've received seems mainly to be based on paper mail too, not email. I've certainly never heard of a bank freezing an account because it received an email bounce-back.

Hoenir

HUMBUG said:

I might opt for them instead.

Companies themselves can choose who to conduct business with. Relationships are two way. 

HUMBUG

MeteredOut said:

You really need to stop relying on AI to make assertions. It can and does get things wrong - it basically crowd sourcings information from all sources made available to it as part of its model - and that includes large parts of the internet containing wrong or misleading information.

I'm not saying what you've pasted above is wrong, but you cannot assume it is correct without verification.

Yes , your correct as I've had AI give me nonsense answers before but it does seem to make some sense that banks might have some security measures in place.  As I said before , I am awaiting replies from 8 out of the 9 'banks/building societies' I've contacted , so I'll know more.

Barkin

HUMBUG said:

Anyhow , I will know more from those 9  banks I've already contacted . If they have follow-up procedures for returned email, I might opt for them instead.

You do remember what Shawbrooks initially said, when you first queried this with them?

masonic

Surely security issues can only arise through someone acting on a malicious email. Not acting on an email (including an apparent bounce) is safer from a security perspective.

HUMBUG

Strange that Shawbrook still haven't submitted their final reply as I was expecting it a few hours ago. A straightforward letter saying:

1. I was responsible for not updating the correct email address .
2. They are not obliged to action on undelivered emails.
3. They are not responsible for any potential loss of interest due to my maturity inaction.
3. This is their final reply and if I am unhappy can escalate to the FOS.