Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against United Trust Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M and Mr M complained that UTB provided unclear information about evidence required to redeem their mortgage, causing distress and preventing them from redeeming on their preferred date of 12 December 2022, resulting in additional interest payments. UTB required evidence of the source of funds for money laundering compliance purposes. Although the November correspondence was somewhat ambiguous, UTB clearly explained on a 6 December call that both pension information and a bank statement were needed, and offered to allow redaction of the bank statement. Mr M chose not to provide the bank statement despite these clear explanations and instead pursued a complaint. The ombudsman found UTB treated Mrs M and Mr M fairly, communicated clearly during the December call, and did not cause the delay in redemption, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that UTB clearly communicated the requirement for both pension information and a bank statement during the 6 December call. UTB offered a reasonable solution by allowing redaction of the bank statement to address privacy concerns. The ombudsman noted that Mrs M and Mr M could have provided the redacted bank statement following the December discussions and proceeded with redemption, but chose instead to pursue the complaint. The ombudsman declined to interfere with UTB's money laundering processes and found no unreasonable delay attributable to UTB. The additional interest paid resulted from Mrs M and Mr M's decision not to provide the required documentation rather than any UTB failing.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website