Veste

Upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Furness Building Society

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5490947 of 2025-06-02T00:00:00+00:00. Account administration errors complaint against Furness Building Society. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-5490947
Decision date2025-06-02T00:00:00+00:00
FirmFurness Building Society
ProductSavings / ISA
Claim typeAccount administration errors
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyFBS required to credit Mr R with an additional £50 (total compensation of £225, with £175 previously credited)

Summary

Mr R complained to Furness Building Society about their handling of his pension payments. Since 2015, FBS had been receiving pension payments into an old internal account and manually transferring them monthly to Mr R's account. When internal changes made this arrangement impossible, the payments were returned, but FBS failed to notify Mr R promptly or instruct him to update his account details with the pension provider. Mr R incurred costs exceeding £200 and suffered inconvenience. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, agreeing that FBS's total compensation of £225 (£75 for costs and £150 for distress and inconvenience) was fair and reasonable, and required an additional £50 payment.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that FBS made clear errors including failure to notify Mr R promptly about returned payments and failure to instruct him to update account details with the pension provider. While FBS attempted to maintain service through manual adjustments, this was not ideal. The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that £225 total compensation (£75 for costs and £150 for distress and inconvenience) was fair and reasonable, declining to accept Mr R's hourly rate valuation or all claimed costs, as these were matters of choice and fairness rather than FBS's direct responsibility.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Furness Building Society, all decisions435%
Account administration errors, all decisions25,84425%
Savings / ISA, all decisions7,66722%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website