In 1990, a couple took out an endowment mortgage, which they changed to an annuity loan three years later.
By 1997, they realised that their repayments had never been adjusted to take account of the change. They were then told by their building society that they would have to make up for the £170-a-month shortfall over those years.
However, the ombudsman decided that they were in no way responsible for what had happened and that the society would have to take a large proportion of the loss.
A bank sent a long-standing customer a pass card and PIN number without being asked to. Some months before the lady died, she entered a nursing home and, in that time, a carer used the ATM once or twice a day to effect small withdrawals. These continued after she died but before the bank was notified of her death. In all, £17,000 was withdrawn in this way in seven months.
The bank claimed it had no way of knowing that anything was amiss. However, the ombudsman found that the lady was well-known at her local branch and had always conducted her affairs in a well-ordered manner.
She had never used an ATM machine and had never requested a card. Then, at the age of 94, it appeared as though she had suddenly begun to withdraw sums of money through ATM machines every day, week in and week out, for seven months. The ombudsman found that this amounted to constructive notice to the bank that all was not well, and it was ordered to pay the executors £17,000.
A customer found an old statement among his papers, showing that he had opened a bank account in 1959. The last recorded transaction was in 1973, when a balance of £3,000 was shown. Including interest, this would currently amount to £7,500. But the bank refused to pay out, saying the account must have been closed and the amount paid out long ago.
The bank was unable to show when, if ever, the money was paid. Nevertheless, the ombudsman found for the bank. Given that it was 25 years since the last transaction, and that banks do pay out monies without pass books, he found the presumption of the existence of the account had been rebutted.
