Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Skipton Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained about a written warning letter from Skipton Building Society following a visit to a branch on 17 June 2025, where he questioned why his wife was told an appointment was required to open a savings account when he had opened one without an appointment eight days earlier. Skipton stated Mr G shouted at staff and described his behaviour as verbally aggressive, while Mr G disputed this characterisation and expressed concern about being labelled a troublemaker and fear of future branch visits. The ombudsman found on the balance of probabilities that there was a serious clash between Mr G and staff, supported by his own admission of having 'had words' and previous incidents of aggressive behaviour, and concluded that Skipton's warning was fair and reasonable given its duty to protect staff from unacceptable conduct.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities standard to resolve the conflicting accounts. Based on Mr G's own admission of having 'had words' with staff and the fact that he was told to calm down, the ombudsman found it more likely than not that there was a serious clash between Mr G and branch staff. The ombudsman noted that Mr G's frustration, while understandable, did not justify the behaviour and that previous incidents of aggressive conduct (including calling an employee an idiot) supported Skipton's concerns. The ombudsman concluded that Skipton had a duty to protect its staff and that issuing a warning was a fair and reasonable response to unacceptable behaviour.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website