Not upheld: incorrect settlement figure / administrative error complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as First Direct
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6226243 of 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00. incorrect settlement figure / administrative error complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as First Direct. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6226243 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-10T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as First Direct |
| Product | Personal loan |
| Claim type | incorrect settlement figure / administrative error |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as First Direct must pay Mr A £5 compensation in addition to the £2.02 refund already provided. |
Summary
Mr A complained that HSBC provided an incorrect settlement figure for his loan, resulting in a £2.02 overpayment. HSBC acknowledged the error, apologised, and refunded the overpayment within four days, later offering £5 compensation. Mr A sought additional remedies including 8% interest, compensation for distress and inconvenience, and formal documentation. The ombudsman found HSBC's offer fair and reasonable given the minimal financial impact and quick resolution, and did not direct them to provide additional compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the FOS approach to compensation, which is to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in had the error not occurred. Given that the actual error involved only £2.02 and was resolved within four days, the ombudsman considered the impact was minimal. While HSBC admitted the error, the ombudsman found that a token payment of £5 plus the refund and apology was fair, as compensation for distress and inconvenience is not warranted when matters are resolved quickly and the financial impact is negligible.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as First Direct, all decisions | 29 | 14% |
| Personal loan, all decisions | 22,070 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website