Not upheld: Account administration errors complaint against Kroo Bank Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E complained that Kroo Bank failed to properly set up four direct debits because the payee names on his bank statements did not exactly match the names on the mandates he signed (e.g., 'Axa Ppp Healthcare' vs 'Axa PPP Healthcare'). He claimed this meant the direct debits were unauthorised and he lost out on health insurance and home emergency cover. Kroo Bank maintained the payments were processed correctly and provided copies of the original mandates and service user codes. The ombudsman found no evidence of incorrect setup, noting that minor name variations are normal as companies use trading names and abbreviations, and that Mr E received services until he himself cancelled the direct debits, proving they were functioning as intended.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found no evidence of incorrect setup or unauthorised payments. Minor variations in payee names between bank statements and what Mr E expected are normal and acceptable, as companies often use trading names different from legal names or abbreviations. The fact that Mr E received services from all four providers until he himself cancelled or recalled the direct debits is supporting evidence that they were set up correctly. The payee descriptions on statements matched exactly what the providers had told Mr E to expect. Mr E's loss of services resulted from his own decision to cancel/recall the direct debits, not from any action or inaction by Kroo Bank.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website