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

HUMBUG

VNX said:

dunnm1 said:

Eyeful said:

1. It makes no difference.
You changed your Email address & could have contacted Shawbrook at any time to tell them of your changed Email address but did not.
You now want others to pay you more than £670, for something you should have done but did not.

2. Fairness works both ways.
If it is not fair that Shawbrook, only paid you 0.1% on your matured funds.
Then It is not fair of you, to expect others to pay you money, when you did not to tell Shawbrook of your new Email address.

3. It appears like you are looking for any reason to avoid losing money, that resulted from
you choosing not to tell them of the new Email address.

Gobbledygook 

It’s really not 

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

Qyburn

booneruk said:

It's been mentioned earlier in this thread I believe that "email address doesn't exist" bounce backs are entirely optional and down to each email service provider to implement. It's not a reliable mechanism in any way so should never be relied upon.

Many don't send them for security reasons.

Section62

HUMBUG said:

5. Yes , the T&C's state that matured funds go into a maturity account, so what?  The issue is the paltry 0.1% interest they apply.

Would you have been happy with 0.5%?  If not, what rate were you expecting them to pay on accounts they don't really want people to keep money in?

The issue is that you didn't move the money out of the account on maturity, as you say you would have done if you'd known.  So blame the process that led to you not knowing and not being reminded, not the interest rate.

If you go to FoS with a complaint the interest rate was too low you'll get nowhere.

Section62

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.

Barkin

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.

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.

My thoughts exactly.

There's also section 6.1 which explicitly states that the notification of secure messages and documents will be by email. No "and..." or "if..."

1spiral

I think the problem with emails though is they're not foolproof.

I play football with a group every week and an email is sent to request players for the week and a subsequent one to confirm teams. In the 6 years I have been playing, twice the email has not arrived. My name wasn't missed off the list and it didn't go to spam but I never received it. I only know this because as I was expecting it and I chased it up when it didn't arrive.

HUMBUG

Barkin said:

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.

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.

My thoughts exactly.

There's also section 6.1 which explicitly states that the notification of secure messages and documents will be by email. No "and..." or "if..."

I've now been contacted by the Shawbrook customer complaints team member who refused to give me his full name .  I normally experience that response from offshore teams but he assured me he wasn't offshore (although it sounded like it was).

He said they were not responsible and quoted clause in the T&C's :

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

6.1. 

Contacting each other

 We may contact you by post, telephone, email, Secure Message, mobile phone, text message and/or any other messaging service using the latest address, telephone number, email address or other contact information 

you have given us. When we send you a Secure Message or upload a Secure Document, we will tell you by email (you may need to check your junk or spam folders). It is your responsibility to make sure that we have your current contact details. We will keep sending information to you at the last known address or contact information we have for you. 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.
---------------------------------------------

But then I quoted clause 6.3 which he seemed to suggest was irrelevant.

----------------------------------------------
 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. 
-----------------------------------------------

He confirms that they have no process to deal with 'Undelivered Email' (because they have a  'No Reply Mailbox') and has agreed to post his final response in my online account .

I suggested he checks with his senior manager before sending the final response letter (ie. no goodwill or compensation) which I will then escalate to the Financial Ombudsman. 

Barkin

This is going around in circles. Repeatedly quoting the T's&C's here isn't going to solve anything.

Have you raised an official complaint, using the process detailed on the website?
It doesn't sound like you have, but...

Section62

Barkin said:

This is going around in circles.

Have you raised an official complaint, using the process detailed on the website?
It doesn't sound like you have, but...

If Shawbrook are issuing a "final response" then it sounds like they've treated the correspondence so far as a formal complaint and reached a conclusion.

If Humbug is set on going to FoS then it might be in their interests to accept this "final response" as a final response, and not waste time trying to take it further with Shawbrook.

The worst that can happen is Shawbrook subsequently dispute whether the FoS can get involved because a real "final response" wasn't issued.  It doesn't sound likely they will be offering a token sum as goodwill, let alone the full amount Humbug would like them to pay.

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.