Not upheld: mis-selling / misrepresentation regarding account fee waiver complaint against THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6335698 of 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00. mis-selling / misrepresentation regarding account fee waiver complaint against THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6335698 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | mis-selling / misrepresentation regarding account fee waiver |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mr L complained that an RBS Premier Banking manager told him he could have a Premier Reward Black account for free if he maintained a £250,000 balance. Mr L later applied online and discovered he was being charged the monthly fee despite meeting the stated balance requirement. RBS and its investigator did not uphold the complaint. The ombudsman found the competing testimonies inconclusive and noted that RBS's website clearly disclosed the £36 monthly fee with only limited reduction options available, concluding there was insufficient evidence that RBS had made an incorrect statement about a fee-waiver.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman weighed the competing testimonies and found Mr L's account specific but noted that no such fee-waiver was mentioned in the online application process or on RBS's website. The ombudsman considered alternative explanations: that the manager may have explained interest earnings would exceed the fee, or that Mr L confused the Black credit card fee-waiver with the current account fee. Ultimately, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence to conclude RBS had made an incorrect statement, particularly given that the monthly fee was clearly disclosed when Mr L applied online.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, all decisions | 17 | 21% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website