Veste

Partially upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Gatehouse Bank Plc

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-3599920 of 2022-11-21T00:00:00+00:00. Account administration errors complaint against Gatehouse Bank Plc. Outcome: Partially upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-3599920
Decision date2022-11-21T00:00:00+00:00
FirmGatehouse Bank Plc
ProductSavings / ISA
Claim typeAccount administration errors
OutcomePartially upheld
RemedyGatehouse Bank Plc should pay Mr R £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in providing information.

Summary

Mr R complained that Gatehouse Bank Plc delayed crediting £84,100 to his fixed rate savings account and breached its terms and conditions. The funds were deposited on 28 July 2021 after 1pm and credited on 29 July 2021. The ombudsman found no breach of terms and conditions as the account terms explicitly permitted next-day crediting for deposits received after 1pm. However, the ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding Gatehouse's delay in providing Mr R with information he had requested, finding he had chased the request multiple times and waited longer than appropriate. The ombudsman ordered Gatehouse to pay £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the information delay.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Gatehouse Bank did not breach its terms and conditions regarding the delay in crediting funds because the terms explicitly stated that funds received after 1pm would be credited the next business day. However, the ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding the delay in providing Mr R with information, finding that while Gatehouse technically complied with data protection timelines for a formal request in October 2021, Mr R had chased an earlier request multiple times and waited longer than he should have, causing distress and inconvenience.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Gatehouse Bank Plc, all decisions1035%
Account administration errors, all decisions25,84425%
Savings / ISA, all decisions7,66722%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website