Not upheld: unfair contract terms and conditions complaint against OakNorth Bank plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that OakNorth's terms were unfair because he had to provide 95 days' notice to transfer funds from his existing deposit account, while OakNorth did not provide advance notice before reducing his interest rate following a Bank of England base rate decrease. The ombudsman found that the account operated as designed: the 95-day notice requirement is a standard feature of notice accounts offering higher rates, and automatic interest adjustments following base rate changes do not require notice because OakNorth does not control the base rate. The ombudsman rejected the argument that the terms are one-sided, noting that Mr B would benefit from immediate interest increases if the base rate rose. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman distinguished between the two components of the base rate tracker interest: the Bank of England base rate (which OakNorth does not control) and the spread (which OakNorth does control). The terms and conditions only require advance notice when OakNorth changes the spread. Since the spread remained unchanged at 0.31%, no advance notice was required. The ombudsman rejected the argument that the terms are one-sided because the account operates symmetrically: Mr B would benefit from immediate interest increases if the base rate rose without requiring advance notice from OakNorth.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website