Not upheld: cheque processing policy and reasonable adjustments for vulnerable customer complaint against Starling Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6362086 of 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00. cheque processing policy and reasonable adjustments for vulnerable customer complaint against Starling Bank Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6362086 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Starling Bank Limited |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | cheque processing policy and reasonable adjustments for vulnerable customer |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. Complaint not upheld. |
Summary
Miss M, a neurodivergent customer, attempted to deposit two cheques that were more than six months old. Starling declined both cheques citing standard industry practice and policy. Miss M requested Starling use discretion and accept the cheques as a reasonable adjustment for her neurodiversity-related administrative difficulties. Starling's agent consulted the payments team but confirmed it could not make an exception, instead offering alternative solutions. The ombudsman upheld Starling's decision, finding that the six-month cheque validity policy is standard industry practice and that Starling took reasonable steps to support Miss M while adhering to its policies.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that it is standard industry practice for banks to reject cheques dated more than six months old to reduce fraud and prevent administrative complications. Although Miss M has neurodiversity-related difficulties with administrative tasks, Starling took steps to consider whether it could process the cheque outside its normal procedures and provided reasonable explanation and alternative solutions. The ombudsman concluded Starling did not act unfairly in adhering to its internal policies while still attempting to support the customer.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Starling Bank Limited, all decisions | 992 | 25% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website