Veste

Not upheld: service failure, account switching, eligibility for incentive complaint against The Co-operative Bank P.L.C.

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6357012 of 2026-05-18T00:00:00+00:00. service failure, account switching, eligibility for incentive complaint against The Co-operative Bank P.L.C.. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6357012
Decision date2026-05-18T00:00:00+00:00
FirmThe Co-operative Bank P.L.C.
Productcurrent account
Claim typeservice failure, account switching, eligibility for incentive
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo additional remedy ordered. The £100 compensation already paid by Co-op was deemed fair and reasonable.

Summary

Mr Y complained that Co-op failed to action his account switch request and that he missed out on a £175 switch incentive. Co-op initially offered £175 as goodwill but later withdrew it after discovering Mr Y had previously received a switch incentive in 2024, making him ineligible under the offer terms. The ombudsman found that Mr Y did not complete the switch request during account opening and was ineligible for the incentive regardless. Although Co-op acknowledged service shortfalls and paid £100 compensation, the ombudsman upheld this as fair and reasonable, declining to award the £175 incentive or additional compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that while Co-op gave inconsistent information and had service shortfalls, Mr Y was never eligible for the £175 switch incentive because he had previously received a switch incentive in 2024, which made him ineligible under the terms requiring customers not to have benefitted from a switch incentive since 1 November 2022. Additionally, Mr Y did not complete the switch request as part of his account application, and the debit card was properly despatched. The £100 compensation already paid was fair and reasonable for the inconvenience caused by the service failures.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
The Co-operative Bank P.L.C., all decisions8616%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website