The bank told Derek it had to carry out security checks in person, but did he really need to travel to his bank? Or was there another way?
What happened
Derek had a bank account which he’d stopped using, and he’d lost the debit card connected to it. But he decided to start using that account as his main account and contacted his bank to ask for a new debit card.
The bank said that – because he hadn’t used that account for several years – it had been classified as ‘dormant’. It said Derek would need to go into a branch to have his identity verified and the account reactivated.
Derek explained that he relied on public transport and his nearest branch was two bus journeys away. Getting to the branch would be difficult, as he had heart problems and trouble with mobility. He offered to post the identification documents the bank had asked to see.
But the bank said it couldn’t reactivate the account unless he came to the branch. So, Derek made the journey.
When he got to the branch, the bank carried out the checks. None of Derek’s personal details had changed and he was able to answer all the security questions. The bank reactivated his account and issued a new debit card.
But when he left, Derek felt the bank could have made all these checks just as easily over the phone. He complained to the bank and, dissatisfied with their response, he brought his complaint to us.
What we said
We understood why the bank had a rigorous security process. And, for a lot of its customers, visiting a branch would have been the quickest and easiest way to access their account.
But we felt that because Derek had health problems and trouble getting around, the bank could, and should, have considered other options for him.
Derek had explained his situation and offered to post the bank the documents they needed. And he would have been able to answer the bank’s security questions just as easily over the phone.
We thought the bank had caused Derek unnecessary distress and inconvenience by making him visit a branch, given his health and mobility issues. We thought an award of £150 was fair in the circumstances.