Money Transfer (between accounts/between banks/3rd Decision Reference 2025-0204

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Year: 2025
• Reference: 2025-0204
• Date: 19 December 2025
• Subject Matter: Money Transfer (between accounts/between banks/3rd
• Finantial Sector: Banking
• Conducts Complained Of: Failure to process instructions,Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code) , Failure to process instructions in a timely manner

Decision Ref:

2025-0204

Sector:

Banking

Product / Service:

Money Transfer (between accounts/between

banks/3rd

Conduct(s) complained of:

Failure to process instructions

Complaint handling (Consumer Protection Code)

Failure to process instructions in a timely manner

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

Background

This complaint is about a refusal to provide banking services.

The Complainant’s Case

The complaint is in relation to a business account commencing with 986*** (the

“Account”) held by Complainant company with the Provider. The Complainant Company is

represented by one of its directors and herein referred to as the Complainant (the

“Complainant").

The Complainant sets out that in July 2015 he attended a branch of the Provider to make a

funds transfer in the sum of €10,803.77 (ten thousand eight hundred and three euro and

seventy-seven cents) from the company’s account to a supplier. The Complainant states

that the Provider “... refused to make a transfer ... “and later told him that he “... needed a

Photo ID to make transfers over 5,000 euro.”

The Complainant submits that “I was able to provide evidence of my identity by contacting

the [Provider's] head office while in the branch by answering security questions and also by

accessing my account online (on my laptop) in the presence of the branch manager and

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

confirming the balance on the account and the last transactions.” The Complainant says

that the Branch Manager “accepted” his identity, but “still refused” to process the

transaction. He submits that in the preceding 18 months the Provider had closed two of its

branches and the branch he visited was then his nearest branch which he states he “had

frequently dealt with over previous months including the previous week but the staff ... did

not recognize me.”

The Complainant contends that he was in the branch trying to make the transaction for

two hours and for part of that time he was “locked in a room on my own.” He asserts that

the “Photo ID” requirements or the “limit of in-branch electronic transfers,” are not stated

in the Provider's terms and conditions. He says the limit could have been “... 100 euro or

100000 euro ... “but this could not have been “known by the customer in advance.” It is the

Complainant's view that this interaction could have resulted in a large financial loss for the

Complainant company. He states he telephoned his supplier from the Provider's branch

and forwarded them evidence of three transactions totalling the full payment amount, at

which point his supplier agreed to release the goods that he required.

The Complainant outlines that he submitted a complaint to the Provider in July 2015 but

states that the Provider failed to respond to him or issue a “final letter within the 40 days

as required.”

The Complainant has rejected the Provider’s offer of compensation of €2,000.00 (two

thousand euro) on the basis that “it does not reflect the reputational damage [the

Complainant company] suffered” nor does it recognise “the amount of time and effort that

[the Complainant has] has personally had to devote to this complaint”. The Complainant,

by email dated 4 December 2023, seeks payment of €5,000.00 (five thousand euro) to him

personally and payment to the Complainant company of a further €5,000.00 (five

thousand euro) in resolution of the complaint.

The Provider’s Case

The Provider asserts that, as of 13 July 2015, its internal security procedures required any

staff member handling the Complainant’s request to transfer funds, to verify and record

details of the customer’s photographic identification if that payment exceeded a specified

threshold. The Provider states that it could not dispense with this requirement where the

Complainant was not known at the local branch in question.

The Provider submits that the specific information as to when photographic identification

was required was not expressly set out in its terms and conditions, on the basis that: