Partially upheld: service failures, communication failures, interest rate complaint, complaint handling complaint against The Mansfield Building Society
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6263823 of 2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00. service failures, communication failures, interest rate complaint, complaint handling complaint against The Mansfield Building Society. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6263823 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | The Mansfield Building Society |
| Product | savings account |
| Claim type | service failures, communication failures, interest rate complaint, complaint handling |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | The Mansfield Building Society must pay G £125 in total (£25 for initial service issues and £100 upon referral to FOS), less anything already paid, within 28 days of acceptance of this decision. |
Summary
G, a limited company, held a 180-day notice savings account with Mansfield Building Society from February 2024 and complained about the interest rate, service failures, and communication issues. Key issues included Mansfield's failure to apply the 180-day notice period when requested, missing bonus expiry date in communications, requirement for dual-signed letters, and failure to provide a passbook and closure statement. Mansfield offered £125 in compensation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, finding service failures but determining that the interest rates were fair and above average, and that G's own actions suggested it would not have withdrawn funds earlier even if notice had been properly applied. The ombudsman upheld the £125 compensation as adequate and did not award additional compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Mansfield had service and communication failures, particularly in failing to apply the 180-day notice period when requested, the impact of these failures was limited. The product documentation clearly stated the six-month bonus period, so G should have known when it would expire. The interest rates offered by Mansfield were fair and higher than average at the time. Critically, when G was later given the opportunity to withdraw funds, it did not do so, and when informed of the account's rate in April 2025, G chose to keep the funds with Mansfield. This suggests that even if notice had been properly applied, G would likely not have withdrawn the funds earlier. The ombudsman rejected claims about Consumer Duty breaches, noting the FCA does not intend the Consumer Duty to set prices or require firms to offer the best rates. As G is a limited company, it cannot experience distress, only inconvenience, and the level of inconvenience did not warrant additional compensation beyond what was already offered.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| The Mansfield Building Society, all decisions | 8 | 31% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website