The tide is gradually turning.
Following several high-profile ‘de-banking' cases, we recently published blogs titled “What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?” and “Why the proposed new laws to try and prevent de-banking do not go far enough”
Unfortunately, we are still being approach by individuals who feel that they have been unfairly de-banked. This is an incredibly frustrating situation to be in.
We have previously outlined steps that individuals who feel that they have been de-banked can take. This includes making a formal complaint to the relevant bank, accompanied by a Data Subject Access Request (“DSAR”).
However, if the bank's final decision is to reject this formal complaint, what other steps can you take?
Lodging a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service
If you have been unsuccessful with the above steps, you can consider making a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”).
It is important to note that there are strict timeframes involved and a FOS complaint must be lodged within six months of the final decision of the relevant bank.
What is the Financial Ombudsman Service?
The FOS is an official body established by parliament to settle disputes between regulated financial companies and their customers. The FOS has legal power to adjudicate on individuals' complaints. This complaint could arise in circumstances when an individual feels that a financial institution has de-banked them without a valid reason.
What is the process of lodging a complaint?
Once the relevant bank has issued its final decision on your complaint, and provided that this decision was issued within the last six months, you can make a complaint to the FOS by filling out their online complaint form.
A FOS complaint can be bolstered by a detailed statement of complaint (essentially setting out the background to the complaint), accompanied by supporting evidence (including relevant correspondence and/or decisions).
You can strengthen your FOS complaint by ensuring that the specific circumstances of the case fit the relevant criteria.
Will the FOS consider my complaint about being de-banked?
Ultimately, yes.
In fact, according to the data published in a letter sent to the Treasury Committee, complaints to the FOS about account closures have risen by 44% in the past year, with more complaints being upheld.
NAVIGATING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION-RELATED CHALLENGES
Adverse Information on Compliance Databases
We also being increasingly approached by individuals who feel that incorrect and/or inaccurate data about them stored in compliance databases is having an adverse effect on their relationship with financial institutions, causing them subsequent issues, such as bank accounts being closed or difficulties in opening a bank account.
We have also written a series of blogs on a basic overview of the main functions of compliance databases like World-Check and how you can correct information about yourself on such databases?
Bank Account closures or de-banking
We have previously written about how other issues individuals may face, including account closures, are not limited to political figures in the UK, and may affect many thousands of lawful individual and business customers every year. These cases have exposed the difficult balance many financial institutions and their individual and business customers must navigate to gain and maintain access to basic banking services.
To assist those whose accounts have been closed, Gherson's financial crime, investigations and regulatory team have previously written blogs titled
“Why has my bank account been closed”
“Why has my business bank account been closed?”
“140,000 SMEs “de-banked” last year – why could I have been de-banked?”
“What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?”
“Why the proposed new laws to try and prevent de-banking to not go far enough”.
Could a CIFAS Marker be affecting my ability to obtain financial services?
We are increasingly approached by individuals who have been adversely affected by a CIFAS marker and want advice on how to remove this.
In some scenarios, the CIFAS marker against the individual will have been added wrongly, and being in this unfair situation can have a hugely detrimental effect due to the wide-ranging, complex and adverse consequences for the individual affected.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.