Shawbrook Bank Limited · DRN-6236987

The complaint Mr D complains about Shawbrook Bank Limited’s poor service, specifically, the incorrect information it gave to him in connection with a cash ISA (individual savings account) transfer request he made. What happened The events leading to this complaint are well known to both parties. So, here, I’m only intending to refer to the key events relevant to Mr D’s complaint. Mr D opened a fixed rate Cash ISA with Shawbrook on or around 1 August 2024. His intention was to transfer in another ISA that he held with a different financial business (I’ll refer to that business as H). Shawbrook told Mr D that H wasn’t on the ISA electronic transfer system (it transpired Shawbrook hadn’t updated its systems appropriately, as H was on the electronic system), so he’d need to complete a physical transfer form. It also said Mr D couldn’t return the transfer form by email, so he’d need to send it by post. That also turned out to be incorrect information. Despite his reservations, Mr D returned the transfer form by post in line with Shawbrook’s instruction. But Shawbrook didn’t receive it. He subsequently complained to Shawbrook, indicating amongst other things, that it was responsible for his personal information going astray. Shawbrook responded to this particular complaint on 17 September 2024 (it sent a later response about other matters Mr D raised in October 2024). It acknowledged it was incorrect to say H wasn’t on the electronic transfer system and when insisting that Mr D was required to return the transfer forms by post (when email was acceptable). Shawbrook apologised for these errors and paid £125 compensation in respect of the inconvenience caused (it paid an additional £50 in compensation in respect of other shortcomings). It also agreed to honour the ISA transfer terms if Mr D still wished to go ahead, even though the process wasn’t completed within the usual timeframe. It subsequently completed the transfer in November 2024. Mr D wasn’t happy with Shawbrook’s response. So, he complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Again, he said Shawbrook had caused his personal details to be lost (putting him at risk of identity theft) by insisting he return his ISA form by post. One of our Investigators assessed the complaint, but she was satisfied Shawbrook had done enough to put things right, given the compensation it had already awarded. Mr D didn’t agree. He said Shawbrook’s compensation payment of £125 didn’t even cover the third party costs he’d likely have to incur when trying to protect his personal details. In fact, he suggested that Shawbrook’s actions may already have had an adverse impact as somebody had gained unauthorised access to a separate investment account held with a third party.

-- 1 of 5 --

As Mr D didn’t accept the Investigator’s opinion, he asked for his complaint to be referred to an Ombudsman. It’s been passed to me to decide. My provisional decision I sent Shawbrook and Mr D my provisional decision on 26 February 2026. I’ve included relevant extracts below. “Mr D has made a number of different points in support of his complaint. His strength of feeling is clear. He’s also explained that his main concern is the handling of his ISA application. So, although I’ve read all of the other points Mr D has made, it’s matters to do with the ISA transfer (including associated issues) that I’ve mostly focused on within this decision. Shawbrook’s handling of Mr D’s ISA transfer application Mr D clearly believes that Shawbrook’s mistakes (as outlined above) concerning his ISA transfer application have exposed him to an increased risk of fraud/identity fraud. I thought very carefully about this point. Notwithstanding Mr D’s own views about the UK postal service, I have to keep in mind it’s still a service that is relied on and successfully used by numerous different consumers and businesses every day. However, I also accept that no matter how well run or well used the system is, it seems unlikely it can guarantee every piece of mail sent via the standard service (as opposed to the premium services on offer) will be delivered. And Mr D hasn’t indicated that he sent the form via a tracked or special delivery service. Therefore, I accept there is the potential for mail to be misdelivered or otherwise received by the wrong person. And whilst, as far as I’m aware, it remains a criminal offence in the UK to open another person’s mail, I appreciate that may not prevent fraud if information gets into the wrong hands. So, given Shawbrook’s insistence that Mr D return his information by post, as opposed to submitting a transfer application by a secure electronic system, I can understand his point. However, for the reasons I’ll now outline, I’m not currently persuaded that means Shawbrook should take the additional steps Mr D has suggested – such as paying for his Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System (CIFAS) registration or for credit searches. I imagine that will come as disappointing news to Mr D, so I hope the reasons I’ve given below are helpful in explaining how I arrived at this position. Notwithstanding its incorrect advice, I don’t agree that Shawbrook is directly responsible for post not apparently being delivered. That’s the role of an entirely separate business. And, as Mr D does seem to accept, it’s possible that his information has been misplaced within Shawbrook or the postal service. And whilst I do appreciate not knowing what happened is a worry in itself, I’ve seen no persuasive evidence to suggest that Mr D’s information has got into the wrong hands. I note Mr D has since said he’s experienced a problem with an unconnected investment account. But, I’ve seen no evidence, beyond Mr D’s suspicions, that this was as a result of him sending information through the postal system. And I’m fully aware that accounts being hacked or other forms of online identity fraud are, sadly, an all too common an experience for many individuals these days without, as far as I'm aware, there being any connection to the postal service. Further, I understand that Mr D has been a victim of identity theft before. In those circumstances, I can entirely understand why he’d want to protect himself and his

-- 2 of 5 --

information as a precaution. However, again, I’m not persuaded that Shawbrook’s actions have required that. So, in the circumstances, I don't think it would be fair to instruct Shawbrook to reimburse Mr D for any additional costs he might incur in trying to protect his personal information. Shawbrook’s handling of Mr D’s Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) Another of Mr D’s concerns is about the way Shawbrook handled his DSAR. For instance, he says it was selective in what it sent, omitting several calls and dates and not indexing things correctly. As Mr D is no doubt aware, businesses like Shawbrook have a legal obligation to handle requests for personal information, including within relevant timescales. I can see that there were some exchanges between Mr D and Shawbrook about his request and it appears that Shawbrook then sent Mr D some additional information. That seems a reasonable step to take given that Mr D appears to have raised concerns. However, if Mr D feels that Shawbrook didn’t meet its legal obligations, he may want to bring his concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office, as that’s the body that oversees how businesses deal with DSARs. Does Shawbrook need to do anything else to put things right? Lost interest Shawbrook took steps to ensure that, given its mistakes and delays, Mr D didn’t lose out on the fixed rate of interest he expected to earn when setting up the ISA, even though the process wasn’t completed within the normal period. So, rather than Shawbrook’s interest rate taking effect in August 2024 for one year, it started in November 2024 and was fixed for a year. I’m satisfied that was a reasonable action for Shawbrook to take. However, Mr D has also indicated that he may have missed out on further interest. He said that the delay meant his funds continued to earn a lower rate of interest with H for a period of three months. Mr D estimates the loss to be around £140. I asked Mr D for more information and he’s also provided me with some further explanations of how he arrived at that figure. And I agree, based on what I’ve seen, that there’s currently a loss that hasn’t yet been put right. It seems that Mr D’s funds earned approximately 4.80% gross/AER from 14 June 2024, before reducing to a rate of around 4.55% from around 28 August 2024, compared to 4.96% that Shawbrook offered. So, this is the loss that I’m intending to say Shawbrook needs to recognise by working out the difference between the interest rates Mr D earned from his ISA held with H and what he should have received had it transferred to Shawbrook in a timely way. It should ideally pay the shortfall into Mr D’s ISA. Reimbursement for Mr D’s time Mr D seems to be suggesting that Shawbrook should compensate him for the amount of time he’s spent dealing with the issues he experienced based on the amount he might typically earn per hour. And that seems to be a factor in him saying that Shawbrook’s compensation offer of £125 (I’m aware it paid a further £50 in respect of another issue) is insufficient (I’ll return to this issue shortly). But that wouldn’t be fair. When deciding whether to award compensation, and if so for how much, I look at the impact that a business’s mistakes have had on the individual concerned. And, while considering the individual circumstances of each case, I also think about similar awards I might make in relation to matters of equivalent seriousness, where the impact on the individual has been comparable. I don’t make an award based on that individual’s typical earnings. That’s because the consumer is generally not acting in a professional capacity when complaining to a business. Further, I think it’s reasonable, in general terms, for a consumer to engage with a business when something goes wrong.

-- 3 of 5 --

Compensation for distress and inconvenience There’s no doubt Shawbrook caused Mr D unnecessary inconvenience and worry. I’m satisfied I can reasonably conclude that had Shawbrook updated its systems appropriately or at least given Mr D the right information about H being on the transfer system, a lot of what happened could probably have been avoided. I say that especially as the electronic transfer process was generally introduced to allow a much smoother and quicker transfer process between providers. So, assuming Mr D’s request had been submitted that way, I think it’s reasonable to assume the process probably would have been a lot smoother for him. Or at least, it seems it wouldn’t have been necessary for Mr D to return a physical transfer form, something Mr D was clearly worried about. On top of that, Shawbrook’s error was compounded in saying, in response to Mr D’s assertion, that he couldn’t return the information by email either. I’ve thought about whether Shawbrook’s payment of £125 goes far enough. And, on balance, I’m not persuaded it does. I’m intending to say that Shawbrook needs to pay an additional £100 in compensation. As I’ve already mentioned, due to Mr D’s previous experiences, he was clearly worried about sending information by post. And that probably explains his initial reluctance to do so. Further, following Shawbrook’s incorrect advice that he had to return his form by post, Mr D has clearly suffered a fair degree of inconvenience. Not least because it seems he’s been in touch with other agencies, including the postal service and the police, as he’s concerned about the prospect of his information being missing. I think that would be a concern for most people. But I’m persuaded the impact is greater in Mr D’s particular case given that he’s previously been the victim of identity fraud. So, I’m satisfied his concern is heightened. Mr D also says it’s affected his mental health. Arguably, this could have been avoided if Shawbrook had given him the right information at the outset and he’d submitted his transfer application electronically. Responses to my provisional decision Shawbrook accepted my provisional decision and made no further comments. Mr D indicated he’d read my provisional decision and recalled thinking it was grossly unfair. He said it let Shawbrook off the hook with its “insulting” offer that valued his time at £1 an hour. He also said it hadn’t recognised the third party costs he’d likely incur by contacting CIFAS and credit reference agencies. Mr D added, “No wonder Shawbrook accepted it”. However, he also asked for a short extension and indicated he’d likely respond more fully. Our Investigator told Mr D that I’d agreed an extension until close of business on 18 March 2026 and that I’d likely issue a final published decision shortly after that. I haven’t received any further comments from Mr D since granting the extension. 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. In the brief comments he submitted Mr D has equated Shawbrook’s compensation award to an hourly earnings rate. I addressed that point in my provisional decision, when I explained why I don’t think it’s appropriate to compensate Mr D for his time at his professional hourly rate. I remain of that opinion.

-- 4 of 5 --

In addition, I previously set out why I wasn’t minded to direct Shawbrook to reimburse Mr D for any costs he might incur in contacting CIFAS or credit reference agencies (although given the wider circumstances I can see why he might want to take those steps). Mr D hasn’t given me any new comments or evidence to consider over and above the points he’s made throughout. And I’ve already considered those points very carefully. In these circumstances, I don’t see any reason to depart from what I said in my provisional decision. Putting things right I now require Shawbrook Bank Limited to take the steps I set out in my provisional decision and as noted here: • Calculate the loss of interest Mr D suffered by working out the difference between the interest rates he earned from his ISA held with H and what he should have received had it transferred to Shawbrook in a timely way. Shawbrook should ideally pay the shortfall into Mr D’s ISA. • Pay Mr D an additional £100 in compensation to reflect the wider impact Shawbrook’s handling of things had on him (as described in my provisional decision). My final decision I uphold this complaint in part. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr D to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Amanda Scott Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --