Not upheld: Transfer request handling and alleged rejection complaint against Saveable Limited (trading as Plum)

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M complained that Plum rejected her ISA transfer request by relying on a non-existent maturity date. Mrs M had submitted a transfer form on 20 February 2026 that contained conflicting instructions: she selected the option to wait for the maturity/notice period but also entered a specific date of 1 March 2026 for fund availability. Plum did not immediately proceed and instead contacted the new provider stating it could not transfer until 17 November 2026 (the end of the bonus period), while offering Mrs M the option to complete a new form if she wished to proceed sooner. The ombudsman found that Plum did not reject the transfer and acted reasonably in seeking clarification of Mrs M's ambiguous instructions, particularly given the potential financial impact on Mrs M if transferred prematurely.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs M's instructions were ambiguous - she selected the option to wait for the maturity/notice period while simultaneously entering a specific earlier date for fund availability. Plum did not reject the transfer but reasonably sought clarification given the conflicting instructions and the risk Mrs M might lose bonuses if transferred prematurely against her true wishes. While Plum's use of 'maturity date' terminology was potentially confusing for an ISA without a true maturity date, Plum's suggestion that Mrs M complete another form demonstrated it had regard for her stated date and was not simply ignoring her request.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website