Debit Card Decision Reference 2024-0167

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Date: 30 July 2024
• Reference: 2024-0167
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Refusals (banking),Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code) , Dissatisfaction with general customer service
• Year: 2024

Decision Ref:

2024-0167

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Debit Card

Conduct(s) complained of:

Refusals (banking)

Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code)

Dissatisfaction with general customer service

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The Complainant held a current account with the Provider. This complaint concerns issues

that the Complainant experienced between August 2016 and November 2018 when using

the debit cards associated with her current account and the explanations that the Provider

gave her for these issues, as well as the standard of customer service afforded to her by

the Provider, throughout this period.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant says that on twelve separate occasions, between 23August 2016 and 23

November 2018, she experienced difficulty when using her debit cards.

In her FSPO Complaint Submission dated 18 November 2020, the Complainant set out

details of each of the twelve occasions when she experienced difficulty using her debit

card, as follows:

Incident 1:

The Complainant says that on 23 August 2016, she attempted to use Card *0064 to make a

payment at a retailer in the amount of €32.25 and experienced the very great

embarrassment of her card not going through and that it was then necessary for the

retailer to manually key in the card number in order to carry out the transaction. The

Complainant says that this was the first occasion that she had ever experienced a problem

using the debit card associated with her current account with the Provider.

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

Incident 2:

The Complainant says that on 1 September 2016,she attempted to withdraw cash from a

different provider’s ATM using Card *0064 but that the card did not work and that the

word “Error” appeared on the ATM screen.

Incident 3:

The Complainant says that later, on 1 September 2016 at 16:38, she attempted to use

Card *0064 to make a payment at a retailer in the amount of €165.00 but that this

transaction was declined. The Complainant says that the ordinary interpretation of a

declined transaction is that there are insufficient funds in the cardholder’s account to meet

the payment and that the retailer, where she is known, made that observation to her.

The Complainant says she did not have her mobile phone with her at the time, but she

later saw that she had received two text messages from the Provider at 16:42 concerning

the declined transaction. The Complainant notes that these texts were sent to her after

the transaction at 16:38 had been declined, by which time she says, the damage to her

reputation had already been done.

The Complainant submits that the Provider’s protection of its cardholders, is posited on

the basis that cardholders carry a mobile phone with them at all times.

The Complainant says that she telephoned the Provider on 2 September 2016 and that

during the course of this call, it was suggested to her that there could be a problem with

the chip on her card and she says that she was persuaded that Card *0064 should be

cancelled and a new card issued. The Complainant notes that the Provider replaced Card

*0064 with Card *7515 in September 2016 but she says that this process took three weeks

and left her without access to her current account funds for that period.

Incident 4:

The Complainant says that on 18 October 2016, she attempted to use Card *7515 to make

a payment by telephone to an online retailer, but the retailer advised that this transaction

was declined, and her card was blocked. The Complainant notes that she did not receive

any text messages from the Provider concerning this declined transaction (as she had

previously on 1 September 2016 when her card was blocked).

The Complainant says that she telephoned the Provider later on 18 October 2016 in order

to have her card unblocked, and she was advised during this call, that her date of birth was

incorrect on its systems.

The Complainant says that in dealing with her complaint regarding this block, the Provider

asked her by email on 21 October 2016 to confirm her date of birth as there was a

discrepancy in this regard on her Customer Identification Number record. The Complainant

- 3 -

/Cont’d…

questions whether this discrepancy resulted in the Provider’s systems identifying her

incorrectly and blocking her card unnecessarily and in error.

The Complainant notes that as part of its response to the difficulties she was experiencing

at the time, the Provider replaced Card *7515 with Card *8796 in November 2016, though

it advised her that Card *7515 would remain active until 2 February 2017.

Incident 5:

The Complainant says that on 2 December 2016, she attempted to use Card *7515 to

make a payment at a retailer in the amount of €357.00 but that this transaction was

declined.

The Complainant notes that she did not receive any text messages from the Provider

concerning this declined transaction (as she had previously on 1 September 2016 when

her card was blocked), even though the Provider later advised that the reason this

transaction was declined was because Card *7515 had been restricted by its Fraud

Department due to a potential fraud alert.

The Complainant says the fact that the retailer was able to successfully use Card *7515

immediately after the declined transaction by manually keying in the card number in order

to carry out the transaction, calls into question the validity and effectiveness of the

Provider’s system of restricting the use of debit cards in order to supposedly protect its

customers against fraud.

Incident 6:

The Complainant says that on 15 December 2016,she attempted to withdraw cash from a

different provider’s ATM using Card *7515 but that the card did not work, and the

message displayed on the ATM screen read “Your card appears to be faulty and is being

returned to you”. The Complainant says that as this ATM was at her place of work, the

failure of her card was embarrassing and highly inconvenient.

The Complainant says that she met with a Provider Branch Manager the next day, on 16

December 2016, who checked Card *7515 and advised her that the system indicated that

the wrong PIN had been entered on three occasions, resulting in her card being locked.

The Complainant says that she did not insert the wrong PIN at the ATM and notes that the

Branch Manager was unable to provide her with the details of the three occasions on

which it was alleged that the incorrect PIN had been inserted nor advise her over what

period three mistakes would have to accumulate in order for a card to be locked.

The Complainant notes that the Provider later advised in its letter of 28 February 2017

that the Branch Manager had provided her with incorrect information, in that the wrong

PIN had not been entered on three occasions, and that the reason the ATM withdrawal

transaction had been unsuccessful on 15 December 2016 was due to a compatibility/

connectivity issue between Card *7515 and the ATM itself.