Atom Bank PLC · DRN-6174779

The complaint Ms G complains that Atom Bank PLC trading as Atom Bank wouldn’t allow her to use her app on her new device without providing new biometrics, including facial recognition. What happened Ms G bought a new phone in November 2025. However Atom Bank required her to register new biometrics, including facial recognition, before it would allow her access to her app. She didn't want to do this for medical reasons and couldn't see why Atom Bank couldn't simply transfer all the information over to her new phone. She contacted Atom Bank and the position was explained to her. She didn't initially say that she had a medical reason for not wanting to use facial recognition. She complained that she wasn't able to speak to a manager and get the position resolved in time to trade in her old phone. Atom Bank explained that Ms G couldn't register the app on her new device without providing the biometrics, and it couldn't transfer the information across from the old device. It offered for Ms G to manage her account over the telephone and email, but she declined this. So it agreed to close her account and transfer the monies to her without penalty. On referral to the Financial Ombudsman Service, our Investigator said they hadn’t found evidence that Atom Bank had treated Ms G unfairly or caused financial loss. Ms G didn’t agree and the matter has been passed to me for an Ombudsman’s consideration. 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 should clarify that our function is to resolve individual complaints. So I can't make Atom Bank change its systems. I can however consider whether it acted reasonably in the particular circumstances of Ms G’s case. I understand that for medical reasons Ms G didn't want to use facial recognition. From the evidence I see that she would have had to do so to set up the account in 2022, although she hasn't had to use it to access the app since then. However she couldn't see why she needed to register new biometrics because she got a new device, and she has pointed out that other banks allowed all her details to be transferred across. I understand what she means but Atom Bank operates as an app only system. And whilst Ms G doubts its explanation that it can’t transfer details across, if its tech team says that that is the case, I have to accept that. I've considered whether it would have been reasonable to tell Atom Bank to give Ms G access to her app without the facial recognition. Atom Bank has assured her that a photo of her is not stored on its system and its advisers don't have access to any sort of image.

-- 1 of 2 --

Rather it is stored as an algorithm which enables the system to identify her. Nevertheless I understand Ms G’s reasons for not wanting to use facial recognition. So I've considered whether Atom Bank gave her a reasonable alternative to be able to access her account. I bear in mind that this was a fixed rate savings account with a fixed sum invested with a maturity date in 2030. So she wouldn't have needed constant access to the account. Atom Bank offered to provide her with telephone access and the ability to close the account when it matured without needing to access the app. I understand that Ms G doubts that sort of access to the account would have worked. This is based on the fact that on a couple of calls she didn’t pass security. I understand that was annoying for her but all banks and similar institutions have to have that level of security on every phone call. This is to ensure compliance with data protection. As the account has been closed, I can’t assume that telephone access wouldn’t have worked. With regard to Ms G’s initial calls to Atom Bank, she didn't initially explain why she didn't want to use facial recognition and insisted that she had never used it, even to open the account. She later accepted that she'd had to use it initially. I don't think the advisers could have offered her any alternative, so immediate access to a manager, as she wanted, wouldn't have helped her. Finally as regards closure of the account, I've noted from the phone calls that Ms G put it to Atom Bank that if it wouldn't allow her access to the app without facial recognition, she wanted the account to be closed. Atom Bank acted on that and allowed her to close the account without financial penalty. I think it acted reasonably in that respect. In those circumstances I don't think that there was any discrimination involved here. Atom Bank has a particular system for operating its accounts which involves registering of new biometrics when customers change their devices. It can't provide an exception to this to any customer. Though I'm satisfied that, in this instance, it did provide Ms G with an alternative to accessing her account. My final decision For the reasons set out above, I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms G to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Ray Lawley Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --