Bank of Scotland Plc · DRN-6236237

The complaint Mr L is unhappy with Bank of Scotland Plc. Mr L said it wrongly cancelled his debit card without his request or consent. He said this meant he lost access to his essential banking services for a prolonged period. Mr L said Bank of Scotland (BoS) didn’t provide accurate explanations and made contradictory and untrue reports. What happened Mr L has health issues meaning that he relies entirely on his online card payments for all his needs around his food, household supplies, and essentials. Mr L said that during the period without use of the card BoS staff didn’t give him any help or support. Mr L found the situation very stressful particularly given his age and his health issues. He didn’t think BoS took account of his vulnerabilities. Mr L said the £150 compensation offered was paid without explanation and inadequate. Mr L said he should get £500. BoS apologised. It paid £150 for the distress, inconvenience and upset the issue had caused Mr L. It said he had mistakenly entered incorrect information while trying to log in to internet banking. Mr L spoke to an adviser and a new code was arranged to be sent out to Mr L. Unfortunately, as this was sent by post a delay occurred and when Mr L notified BoS it cancelled the code and arranged for another one to be sent. At this point it said it told Mr L he could “contact our Telephone Banking Team to check your account status, make payments, or access other related services.” BoS confirmed Mr L’s online banking had been suspended as there were five unsuccessful login attempts using incorrect credentials. It said this was an automated security measure to protect the account from fraud or unauthorised access. BoS offered assistance if Mr L needed help resetting his password. BoS said Mr L’s card ending 12 “was mistakenly cancelled by yourself” in May 2025. It said a replacement card ending 20 was issued and remained active along with the old card for 30 days or up to first use. Initially BoS said this second card was reported lost and a further card ending 38 was sent to Mr L at the end of September 2025. Eventually BoS accepted Mr L wanted more of an explanation. BoS clarified that when Mr L reported his card ending 12 was damaged it automatically triggers cancellation within 30 days. It said Mr L did this through online banking. It said the delays were with postal delivery as it maintained new cards are dispatched as quickly as possible. It didn’t feel it needed to increase the compensation offer. BoS said its original £150 offer had been reasonable. Mr L continued to raise his concerns with BoS. He said he had never cancelled the card ending 20. BoS said the cancellation occurred through its automated service and it was likely to have happened when Mr L requested a new online banking security code. BoS said, “It appears the card may have been cancelled during that process. Unfortunately, we are unable to confirm this because of the length of time of the incident.”

-- 1 of 3 --

In view of these ongoing issues and the lack of conclusive evidence BoS said it agreed to give Mr L “the benefit of the doubt.” It arranged to pay him a further £150 compensation to bring the total amount up to £300 for his distress and inconvenience. Mr L remained unhappy and brought his complaint to this service. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. He said following Mr L reporting the original damaged card the system arranged for a replacement card to be issued. He said this wasn’t an error. He accepted what BoS said about the replacement card. Our investigator agreed that it seemed this happened inadvertently while Mr L was just trying to get a new security code. Our investigator noted the BoS records showed five failed log in attempts and how it acted promptly to send out new passwords once the old one was revoked. He didn’t think BoS was responsible for the delays encountered with the post. He noted Mr L had more recently been able to successfully log in. He said BoS had acknowledged its errors and apologised for them. He accepted its explanations and noted Mr L had confirmed he faced no financial loss. Mr L remained unhappy and said he still wanted the further £200 in compensation, as he had originally requested. 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. There’s been a lot of detailed correspondence around the evidence for which I’m grateful. But this is an informal service so I’m not going to comment on everything included within this complaint. Instead, I’m going to stick to what I think are the central points that apply here. I can confirm all the evidence provided by both sides has been considered. Mr L said he made mistakes when trying to access his internet banking and this stopped his access. He was promised a new code and when it didn’t turn up, he was informed this would be cancelled and a new code issued. When he later tried to order something online he was told his card was frozen. It was when he made contact after this he was informed his card had been cancelled and a new one was being issued. Mr L said he could have been informed of this during previous calls and no one was able to explain it to him. I think BoS in the end accepted Mr L’s point that he hadn’t requested to cancel his debit card. And it did take a while for it to explain this to him. There’s no doubt that this was a stressful time for Mr L. Mr L explained his personal circumstances and his health problems. It does show he was reliant on his bank and I accept it took BoS longer than it should have done to resolve the issues. I can understand why he felt his complaint had been dismissed based on BoS initial responses and the impression it gave him that it hadn’t done anything wrong. BoS said throughout its investigations it apologised for any inconvenience, explained the reasons for the decisions made and said colleagues “had acted appropriately within process while ensuring support options were in place.” It provided a timeline for the period involved. Although it took BoS quite some time to answer Mr L, I accept its point that the debit card situation occurred because it was notified the card was damaged.

-- 2 of 3 --

As it said above the process when this happens is automatic and the card is then cancelled in 30 days. I don’t think that BoS has acted wrongly here. I think it should have been clearer from the start with Mr L about what it had done and why. But I think a system that acts to replace cards when such incidents occur is reasonable. I don’t think there’s any requirement to ask BoS to correct any record it has suggesting Mr L requested the card cancellation. It’s clear from the way the complaint has evolved that it did eventually realise and accepted this wasn’t the case. So, I think the main error was BoS taking a while to work out how the situation occurred. If BoS does have this recorded incorrectly I’s ask that it makes sure the records are correctly updated. In view of the back and forth nature of this complaint I can see why Mr L feels BoS handling of his complaint had been inadequate. I don’t think there’s any doubt it could have communicated better with him from the start. But I can’t make any further findings on this as complaint handling isn’t a regulated activity. I think the £300 total compensation awarded is fair and reasonable. It does seem to me that BoS processes did work in terms of automated systems. It looks like the issues were more with the post and poor communication from BoS to Mr L to explain to him what was happening. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. I make no further award against Bank of Scotland. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr L to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. John Quinlan Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --