Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Atom Bank PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr J complained that Atom Bank's application process was unclear and misleading, resulting in him opening an Instant Saver account instead of the higher-interest Instant Saver Reward account he intended. He argued that the similarity in account names was misleading and caused him to lose out on higher interest payments. The ombudsman found that the application process clearly displayed the interest rate and key conditions, and that the account statements also clearly showed the lower rate. The ombudsman concluded that the account names were sufficiently differentiated by the word 'Reward' and that Atom Bank did not breach its Consumer Duty obligations, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the application process clearly displayed the interest rate and key conditions, which should have alerted Mr J that he was not applying for the account he intended. The account statements also clearly showed the lower interest rate on their first page. While the account names are similar, the addition of the word 'Reward' sufficiently differentiates them, and the application process was clear enough that a partially similar name cannot be considered misleading. The ombudsman concluded that Atom Bank did not breach its Consumer Duty obligations.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website