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

Kim_13

HUMBUG said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

HUMBUG said:

I think another interesting point regarding bounced emails is the security aspects.

What "security aspects" do you envision there to be?

If you could answer without an AI generated response, that would be ideal.

At least a cursory phone call or SMS text saying that email has been returned and to contact us immediately to prevent your account from being suspended.

I suspect that this practice would be a paradise for scammers, hence they won't do it. I doubt FOS would have any trouble ruling that a suspension of an account for a returned email was disproportionate.

Section62

Kim_13 said:

...
You must surely agree that if Shawbrook should compensate anyone, it would be families in that position who have not contributed to the loss of interest in any way as no matter what they did, the option of giving instructions was not available to them. You could have logged in and done this. I log into all of my accounts throughout the term term to check that nothing has been fraudulently withdrawn. If there were an unexpected transaction, banks will only deal with it if it is reported within a certain time frame so it is in your interests to do this. It also reminds me what the rates are so that I can work out if taking a penalty charge to transfer to a currently available product elsewhere might be worthwhile. We all choose how to manage our finances and have to accept the consequences if our methods fail us. You could have updated your email address with Shawbrook in 2010 but opted to set up a redirection instead.
...

I'm not sure I'd agree with the first BiB, because of the second BiB.  The loss in that situation would be to the deceased's estate, because they chose an account with those terms and conditions.  Therefore the second BiB is invoked - the method of switching the money away to an account paying more than 0.1% at maturity 'failed' because the person being deceased was no longer able to implement their method of money management.

We are all going to die at some point, very few know exactly when.  Many manage their finances with the risk of their death being a key factor in how they arrange things.  In return for a slightly higher interest rate, some people will opt for a fixed rate which comes with risks... such as the product maturing to a poor rate and not being able to promptly transfer the money elsewhere due to incapacitation or death.

So I don't think I'd be comfortable placing the deceased's beneficiaries case for compensation ahead of the OP's.  If the argument is that paying 0.1% interest is 'wrong' (which isn't an argument I buy into) then isn't it 'wrong' for everyone?  Why should one person's decision about risk (of death and probate) be deserving of compensation, and another person's decision (I'll get multiple notifications) not be so deserving?

The only obvious reason might be the difference of being sympathetic to folk suffering bereavement, and someone whose loss is only financial.  And before I get flamed for not being sympathetic to the bereaved family's situation, I am empathetic because I've had to deal with similar nonsenses over the last 12 months (and yes, some money in limbo earning 0% interest)   ...but I put the blame firmly on the unfit-for-purpose probate system, which has lacked capacity to deal with estates promptly, and doesn't empower executors to do some of the basic day-to-day things us MSEers would do to protect and increase the value of the estate.

That the executors weren't able to move the money out of a 0.1% account after "several months" is down to the way we do probate - and that isn't Shawbrook's fault.

Kim_13

Section62 said:

Kim_13 said:

...
You must surely agree that if Shawbrook should compensate anyone, it would be families in that position who have not contributed to the loss of interest in any way as no matter what they did, the option of giving instructions was not available to them. You could have logged in and done this. I log into all of my accounts throughout the term term to check that nothing has been fraudulently withdrawn. If there were an unexpected transaction, banks will only deal with it if it is reported within a certain time frame so it is in your interests to do this. It also reminds me what the rates are so that I can work out if taking a penalty charge to transfer to a currently available product elsewhere might be worthwhile. We all choose how to manage our finances and have to accept the consequences if our methods fail us. You could have updated your email address with Shawbrook in 2010 but opted to set up a redirection instead.
...

I'm not sure I'd agree with the first BiB, because of the second BiB.  The loss in that situation would be to the deceased's estate, because they chose an account with those terms and conditions.  Therefore the second BiB is invoked - the method of switching the money away to an account paying more than 0.1% at maturity 'failed' because the person being deceased was no longer able to implement their method of money management.

We are all going to die at some point, very few know exactly when.  Many manage their finances with the risk of their death being a key factor in how they arrange things.  In return for a slightly higher interest rate, some people will opt for a fixed rate which comes with risks... such as the product maturing to a poor rate and not being able to promptly transfer the money elsewhere due to incapacitation or death.

So I don't think I'd be comfortable placing the deceased's beneficiaries case for compensation ahead of the OP's.  If the argument is that paying 0.1% interest is 'wrong' (which isn't an argument I buy into) then isn't it 'wrong' for everyone?  Why should one person's decision about risk (of death and probate) be deserving of compensation, and another person's decision (I'll get multiple notifications) not be so deserving?

The only obvious reason might be the difference of being sympathetic to folk suffering bereavement, and someone whose loss is only financial.  And before I get flamed for not being sympathetic to the bereaved family's situation, I am empathetic because I've had to deal with similar nonsenses over the last 12 months (and yes, some money in limbo earning 0% interest)   ...but I put the blame firmly on the unfit-for-purpose probate system, which has lacked capacity to deal with estates promptly, and doesn't empower executors to do some of the basic day-to-day things us MSEers would do to protect and increase the value of the estate.

That the executors weren't able to move the money out of a 0.1% account after "several months" is down to the way we do probate - and that isn't Shawbrook's fault.

It was because the deceased absolutely couldn’t give instructions that I felt it unfair to the estate. Of those that do know when the end is approaching, some may only get a few months, therefore had chosen a fix expecting to be fit and well through the term but are locked in and are unable to give early instructions for the standard Easy Access on maturity even when they have been made aware that they won’t be alive to see maturity. The funds in the estate will be legally someone’s as of the date of the death and creditors and beneficiaries have had no part in a provider with those terms being selected. They are in more of a Catch 22 than OP who chose to use Shawbrook and has admitted they made a mistake in not updating their details as required and in overlooking the maturity dates in their records. 

I would be in support of changes that enabled an Easy Access to be chosen over the Maturity account at any time during a term, or on production of a death certificate. 

Hoenir

Kim_13 said:

You must surely agree that if Shawbrook should compensate anyone, it would be families in that position who have not contributed to the loss of interest in any way as no matter what they did, the option of giving instructions was not available to them. 

There's no legal contractual relationship with any other party than the account holder or their legally appointed representatives. 

HUMBUG

The Financial Ombudsman is still reviewing my case (yet another standard email sent again). They must have a high workload.

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

Good Afternoon

 

I'm just getting in touch to let you know I'm still looking at your case. 

 

I'll be in touch again when I have any further updates or if I need to ask you for information. 

 

Thank you for your patience whilst we're taking a closer look at cases such as yours. 

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

eskbanker

HUMBUG said:

The Financial Ombudsman is still reviewing my case (yet another standard email sent again). They must have a high workload.

To be fair, they set expectations of circa six months on average:

When we have the basic information we need to set up your case, it will be allocated to a case handler for investigation. In general, it takes two to three months for a case to be allocated for investigation. However, it can sometimes take longer, depending on what your complaint is about.

[...]

Once the case handler has completed their investigation, they will give you an initial assessment of your case. Typically, this part of our process takes up to 90 days. A  complex complaint, or where either party disagrees with the initial assessment and asks for final decision, may mean it takes longer. You will be updated by your case handler as things progress.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/expect/how-long-it-takes