Not upheld: account opening rejection and poor customer service complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc trading as First Direct

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs N complained that First Direct refused to open an account despite her providing documents she had been advised to send, and that she received poor service including conflicting information across multiple calls and no notification of the rejection. First Direct acknowledged the service fell below standards and paid £100 compensation, but maintained the application was properly rejected because the P60 document provided did not meet its identity verification criteria. The ombudsman found that while First Direct's service was poor and advice misleading, the rejection of the application was not unreasonable given the documents did not meet the firm's stated criteria, and the £100 compensation was fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman assessed whether First Direct made mistakes and responded fairly. While acknowledging that First Direct gave misleading advice and poor service (conflicting information, failure to contact about rejection), the ombudsman found the rejection of the application itself was not unreasonable because the documents provided did not meet First Direct's stated criteria. The ombudsman noted that First Direct has legal and regulatory obligations regarding identity and address verification, and that it is not the ombudsman's role to review business policies but rather to assess fairness. The £100 compensation was deemed appropriate recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor service.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website