Not upheld: Card / payment disputes complaint against OakNorth Bank plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5051710 of 2024-12-06T00:00:00+00:00. Card / payment disputes complaint against OakNorth Bank plc. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5051710 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2024-12-06T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | OakNorth Bank plc |
| Product | Savings / ISA |
| Claim type | Card / payment disputes |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. No further action required from OakNorth Bank. |
Summary
Mr M complained that OakNorth Bank delayed transferring funds from his maturing fixed rate savings account to his nominated account until he contacted the bank on 14 August 2024. He alleged the delay was deliberate and linked to a separate complaint. OakNorth Bank stated the funds were transferred on the maturity date following standard procedures. The ombudsman found that the bank acted fairly and reasonably by processing the transfer on the maturity date as specified in the account terms and conditions, which did not require processing at a specific time of day. No evidence supported Mr M's allegations of deliberate delay or connection to his separate complaint.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman examined whether OakNorth Bank acted fairly and reasonably in applying their policies and procedures to Mr M's circumstances. The account terms and conditions required the bank to credit funds on the maturity date but did not specify a particular time. OakNorth Bank processed the transfer on the maturity date in line with their standard procedures for multiple maturing accounts. There was no evidence that the bank deliberately delayed the transfer or deviated from usual procedures, and no evidence supporting Mr M's allegation that the delay was linked to his separate complaint.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| OakNorth Bank plc, all decisions | 12 | 12% |
| Card / payment disputes, all decisions | 14,085 | 18% |
| Savings / ISA, all decisions | 7,667 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website