Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F complained that HSBC provided misinformation when he attempted to withdraw funds from his minor son's My Savings account. The telephony agent incorrectly stated the child did not need to be present for a branch withdrawal, but when Mr F attended branch he was told the child's presence was required. Mr F argued that his parental responsibility under the Children Act 1989 gave him authority to act on his son's behalf regardless of HSBC's internal procedures. HSBC upheld the complaint and awarded £75 compensation for the misinformation. The ombudsman found HSBC's requirement that the account holder be present was reasonable for an account held in the child's name, declined to make legal findings on parental rights, and determined the £75 compensation was appropriate, declining to award further compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while HSBC provided misinformation to Mr F about whether his son needed to be present for the withdrawal, the branch staff were correct in requiring the child's presence as this is a reasonable requirement for an account held in the child's name. The ombudsman declined to make a legal finding on whether parental responsibility overrides HSBC's account procedures, as this is a matter for the courts, not the ombudsman service. The £75 compensation already awarded appropriately acknowledged the inconvenience of the wasted trip, and no further compensation was warranted as Mr L (the account holder) did not experience the inconvenience himself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website