Upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Triodos Bank UK Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-4315319 of 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00. Service failures generally complaint against Triodos Bank UK Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-4315319 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Triodos Bank UK Limited |
| Product | Savings / ISA |
| Claim type | Service failures generally |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Triodos Bank UK Limited must: (1) communicate with Mr W by email where possible, or by post for secure communications; and (2) pay £100 compensation. |
Summary
Mr W complained about customer service from Triodos, including dissatisfaction with interest rates, account fees, and communication methods. The complaint was limited to his personal saver plus account. The ombudsman found that while interest rates and fees are not FOS matters, Triodos's communication approach was unfair as it listed email as an option in account terms but primarily used an online portal and secure messaging, causing Mr W's notifications to go to spam. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Triodos to use email for general communications and post for secure matters, plus pay £100 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Triodos's decision on interest rates and fees is not within FOS jurisdiction, the firm's communication approach was unfair. The ombudsman agreed it was confusing for Mr W to see email listed as a communication method when Triodos considers it insecure and primarily uses an online portal. Given Mr W's documented difficulties with email notifications, the ombudsman found it reasonable for Triodos to use email for non-account-specific information and post for secure communications.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Triodos Bank UK Limited, all decisions | 11 | 23% |
| Service failures generally, all decisions | 32,767 | 33% |
| Savings / ISA, all decisions | 7,667 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website