Bank of Scotland Plc trading as Halifax · DRN-5903724

The complaint Mr H complains Bank of Scotland Plc trading as Halifax unfairly closed his account and provided poor service. What happened Mr H held a joint account and due to a dispute between himself and the other account holder who I will refer to as C, he flagged this matter with Halifax. The account had a note added to highlight the account was in dispute in early December 2024. In January 2025 C attend branch and closed the account. A closure letter was issued, but this was sent to Mr H’s old address. Mr H’s online account was issued a closure statement. On 19 March 2025 Mr H tried to transact on the account and discovered the account had been closed, despite his previous contact with Halifax. Mr H raised a formal complaint regarding Halifax’s handling of matters. Mr H says it failed to follow his clear instructions and wrongly allowed C to close the account, despite his pro-active contact. Mr H says he experienced emotional distress and sleeplessness as a result of the unexpected closure. In order to put things right Mr H asked for a data subject access request, for the account to be reinstated and an explanation of how this error occurred. Halifax reviewed these concerns and in a final response letter dated 20 March 2025 it upheld Mr H’s complaint, it acknowledged poor service had been provided and apologised for the impact on Mr H. It provided Mr H with the relevant evidence relating to his complaint too. Mr H remained unhappy with this review and referred his complaint to our service. An Investigator gathered the relevant information and issued the following findings: • Halifax did provide poor service and did not follow Mr H’s instructions and its internal process for account closures. • This caused Mr H distress and inconvenience so Halifax should pay Mr H £250 in recognition of the impact its failings had on him. Halifax accepted the recommendation. Mr H disagreed – he said the £250 compensation amount was insulting and completely inadequate, and he should be compensated £10,000 given the impact Halifax’s error had on him. Mr H also explained he hadn’t been provided with all the information he had requested – and wanted bank statements issued to him. As no agreement could be reached, the complaint was referred to an ombudsman for a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I’m very aware that I’ve summarised the events in this complaint in far less detail than Mr H has and I’ve done so using my own words. No discourtesy is intended by me in taking this

-- 1 of 3 --

approach. Instead, I’ve focussed on what I think are the key issues here. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. If there’s something I’ve not mentioned, it isn’t because I’ve ignored it. I’m satisfied I don’t need to comment on every individual argument to be able to reach what I think is the right outcome. I do stress however that I’ve considered everything Mr H and Halifax have said before reaching my decision. Firstly, I am sorry to see Mr H has had cause for complaint – I can understand his frustration with the situation. However, having looked at the complaint fully, my review of the evidence has led me to the same overall conclusions as the Investigator previously set out and for much the same reasons. I will explain why. When a joint account is in dispute businesses will have a clear process in place regarding how the account is managed. This includes specific details regarding what transactions can occur on an account, and how it can be closed. In Mr H’s case I can see he pro-actively contacted Halifax to explain he and C had separated. During this call Mr H said he was concerned the account would be closed without his consent. Mr H was informed both account holders would need to attend branch together to close the account. Although a note was added to the account, the account was closed by C. This was because the process at Halifax allowed for an account to be closed in specific circumstances. It is not in dispute that Mr H was given the wrong information, and Halifax’s service fell below reasonable standards. Halifax accepts this and has provided its internal notes which show that the account can be closed in branch by one account holder if the balance is nil. This process specifies this is only applicable if the account isn’t in dispute. The call made by Mr H to Halifax highlighted his concerns, and I agree that this should’ve been noted when C attended branch and closed the account. I can also see that Mr H wasn’t aware of the closure until sometime after it occurred. Closure letters were issued to the address held for the account, which Mr H didn’t receive. A closure statement was issued to Mr H’s online account. I appreciate discovering the account had closed without his consent would’ve caused Mr H distress. I’ve gone on to consider what appropriate compensation would be in the circumstances of Mr H’s complaint. Mr H has explained the closure caused him significant emotional distress and concern. The Investigator recommended £250 compensation for Halifax’s error. Mr H found this insulting and considers £10,000 to be appropriate. Reaching an award for distress and inconvenience is seldom straightforward. The issues involved are subjective by their very nature and the impact on the consumer can be difficult to determine. Our awards are not intended to be punitive for businesses, and their fundamental aim is to recognise the impact on a consumer where there have been shortcomings. Having considered the timeline of events, I think the compensation offer of £250 is fair. I say this because the detriment caused to Mr H primarily consists of being told incorrect information. The statements from the account show it had a nominal balance and Mr H doesn’t appear to have relied on the account for day-to-day spending. The £250 compensation exceeds any financial loss Mr H says he has experienced in light of the account balance just before closure. Mr H also hasn’t provided details of the additional financial losses he has referred to in his complaint, so I am unable to assess this claim further. This isn’t to say I underestimate the concern Mr H experienced at the time, and I appreciate he was already experiencing personal challenges. However, I can’t see that Halifax’s error warrants compensation to the level he has outlined. I would also direct Mr H to our website

-- 2 of 3 --

which provides examples of our awards for distress and inconvenience so he can better understand how we assess these awards. I’m sorry this isn’t the outcome Mr H hoped for. While the amount of compensation isn’t what he was looking for, I do hope my final decision provides some clarity around why I won’t be asking Halifax to pay more than what I have outlined below. Putting things right I direct Bank of Scotland Plc trading as Halifax to pay Mr H £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its poor service. My final decision I uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 15 April 2026. Chandni Green Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --