Partially upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Castle Trust Capital PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Ms P complained to Castle Trust Capital PLC about service failures when opening a savings account in May 2025, including delays responding to her queries, being told the account was no longer available due to those delays, and phone lines being closed during stated operational hours. Castle issued a final response acknowledging the issues and offering £25 compensation. However, the compensation was not paid promptly because the relevant complaint handler left the firm, and Ms P had to chase for payment multiple times over three months before receiving it in October 2025. The ombudsman found Castle's initial service failures were adequately addressed but upheld the complaint in part, ordering an additional £75 compensation (£100 total) for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed compensation payment and Castle's failure to have adequate processes to ensure work was completed when staff left.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Castle's initial service failures (delay in responding to queries and providing incorrect information) were adequately addressed in the final response, the firm failed to pay the promised compensation promptly. The ombudsman determined that Ms P could reasonably expect compensation to be paid as promised and should not have had to chase for payment. The delay of approximately three months caused Ms P distress and inconvenience. Although Castle attributed the delay to a complaint handler leaving the business, the ombudsman found this was not Ms P's responsibility and Castle should have had processes to ensure work was completed. On the balance of probabilities, the ombudsman found Ms P likely did send the chaser emails in August 2025 despite Castle's claims otherwise, and Ms P should not be disadvantaged by Castle's failure to receive them. The ombudsman considered the regulatory information request (taking 10 days) was not excessive.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website