Upheld: service failure and lack of support in resolving technical issue complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms H complained to Starling Bank Limited after being unable to add a replacement payment card to her E-wallet following the loss and recovery of her mobile phone. Starling had cancelled her original card and disabled her phone from the account when she reported it missing, but when she attempted to add the new card to her E-wallet after the phone's recovery, the addition failed repeatedly. Ms H provided evidence that the phone manufacturer had confirmed no device issues, that she had successfully added other cards to the E-wallet, and that she had made multiple documented attempts with professional support. The ombudsman found that all evidence pointed to the issue being within Starling's system and that Starling had failed to provide adequate service, explanation, or support in resolving the matter. The complaint was upheld and Starling was ordered to pay £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, though the ombudsman could not order Starling to fix the technical issue if it was genuinely unable to do so.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that all evidence pointed to the issue being within Starling's system rather than with the phone or E-wallet itself. Ms H had evidenced multiple attempts to add the card with phone manufacturer support, had successfully added other cards to the E-wallet, and the phone manufacturer had confirmed no device issues. Despite Starling's claims to have investigated thoroughly, it provided only generic troubleshooting and failed to explain why the card could not be added. The ombudsman concluded that Starling's actions to remove the card when the phone was missing may have caused the problem, and Starling failed to provide adequate service, clarity, or support in attempting to resolve the issue. While the ombudsman could not order Starling to fix the technical problem if it was genuinely unable to do so, compensation was warranted for the distress, inconvenience, and business disruption caused, particularly given Ms H's disability.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website