A building society was required to pay £6,800 to a customer because of a mistake in the wording of its investment certificates.

The customer had lodged £15,000 in a guaranteed bond offered by the society promising a fixed interest rate payable at maturity. A dispute arose over the interpretation of the words "a guaranteed fixed rate of 23 per cent per annum/ at maturity" on the certificate.

The investor argued that he was to get 23 per cent per annum with the amount payable, when the investment matured. But the society maintained the fixed rate was 23 per cent in aggregate for the three years.

The society argued that the customer must have realised that no investment would pay 23 per cent per annum and maintained that its advertising and application forms showed that a yearly rate was never intended. But the ombudsman ruled that the certificate given to the investor had a mistake in its wording which was the responsibility of the society.

The complaint was upheld and the society was directed to pay £6,800 to the investor - the difference between the amount it had paid on maturity and the amount claimed by the investor.

A bank which unfairly bounced customers' cheques had to pay compensation of £6,000:

A bank had to pay compensation of £6,000 to a couple because the ombudsman ruled it had dishonoured their cheques unfairly. The couple ran a small business and had extensive borrowings with their bank. They ran into difficulties servicing the debt.

They said their bank agreed that if they raised a mortgage on the property with another lender to clear the debt, the bank would continue their overdraft to service the working capital needs of the business as before. The bank contended that it had given no such definite undertaking.

On the day a cheque for £98,000 was lodged by the couple to be offset against their debt, the bank, without warning, bounced several small cheques drawn against their current account. The ombudsman ruled that "by any standard this was extraordinarily harsh treatment to mete out to customers of good standing". The bank's actions were unfair and unjustified and the ombudsman ruled that compensation of £6,000 should be paid to the couple.

Partial pay back of losses incurred when credit card was stolen:

A bank customer's credit card was stolen while he was on holiday in Spain. He telephoned his bank's credit card centre within a couple of hours to have a stop put on the card. He thought that the worst that could happen was that he could lose $200 because he understood from the bank's literature that this was the most that could be withdrawn in any 24-hour period.

But when he got home he founds that £1,000 had been withdrawn from his account in the hours before he reported the card stolen. The customer did not know that in Spain up to £1,000 can be withdrawn from some ATMs over a 24-hour period.

Because the customer had his PIN number with his card when it was stolen the bank argued that he had to bear the full loss from withdrawals before the theft was reported. The ombudsman accepted that the customer was negligent in keeping his card and PIN number together. But he ruled that his expectation, based on the bank's information leaflet, of a maximum loss of $200 was reasonable.

Taking the customer's negligence into account, the Ombudsman awarded £750 to the customer.