Not upheld: poor service quality and inadequate complaint handling complaint against Bank of Scotland trading as Halifax

Decision detail

Summary

Miss L complained about poor service from Halifax following a disputed transaction of £29.99 on her account. She contacted Halifax via online chat and felt the questioning made her feel like a criminal, and she experienced a sleepless night and stress due to her health vulnerabilities. Although the transaction was refunded the following day and her account was secured, Miss L complained that Halifax had not taken her vulnerabilities into account and rejected Halifax's offer of £30 compensation as insulting. The ombudsman found that while Halifax should have routed Miss L to the fraud department immediately, the £30 compensation was fair and reasonable given that the transaction was refunded promptly and no financial loss occurred, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that Halifax's failure to route Miss L to the fraud department immediately caused unnecessary distress, particularly given her vulnerabilities and expectation of a large payment. However, the ombudsman found that the questions asked were not unreasonable, the disputed transaction was refunded promptly, and the account was secured the following day. The ombudsman applied FOS compensation principles which aim to restore the consumer to their original position rather than provide punitive damages, and concluded that £30 was fair compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by Halifax's service failures.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website