In February 2021, Felix’s mother asked the bank to be added as another administrator, saying she had concerns about how Felix’s father was spending Felix’s funds, and she wanted to ensure they were being used in Felix’s best interests. The bank said Felix’s father, as the existing administrator, had to give his permission for this step. It also said it could not give her any information about the account because she had no authority at that time in relation to the account. Felix turned 18 in March 2021 and he took over operating the account.

Felix’s mother was subsequently appointed as Felix’s welfare guardian. She returned to the bank with the relevant court order in May 2022 and repeated her concerns about the transactions made from Felix’s account by his father before Felix turned 18. She also had concerns about the lack of safeguards to protect vulnerable and disabled children such as Felix when setting up and operating a youth account. Felix’s mother also considered the bank had failed to correctly follow its policy and processes because Felix was not present when the account was opened, and Felix’s father was able to operate the account using internet banking and the bank's mobile app.

She was unhappy with the bank's response. She complained that the bank had failed to follow its policy when Felix’s account was opened and operated by his father, that it had failed to take into account Felix’s disability, that it had deleted an automatic payment from Felix’s account without his authority after he had turned 18, that it had failed to take steps to protect Felix when she told it Felix was being defrauded by his father in February 2021, and that it had failed to respond to her complaint and requests for information effectively.

Our investigation

We found the bank had responded correctly to her initial complaint because it could not add her as an administrator without the consent of Felix’s father, and it could not give her any information about the account until she became an administrator – despite her status as Felix’s legal guardian. We also found the bank had correctly followed its policy on youth accounts when it acted on Felix’s father's instructions to open an account on Felix’s behalf. The bank had no obligation to find out Felix’s views on the instructions it had received from his legal guardian. Felix’s father, as the administrator, had full rights to operate the account as he so chose. There was nothing unacceptable or out of the ordinary about the father’s use of internet banking and the bank’s mobile app to operate the account.

We found the bank had made a mistake by accepting an instruction from someone other than Felix to delete an automatic payment after he turned 18. However, Felix had benefited from the bank's actions because the automatic payment was no longer taken from his account as a result. .

We did not consider the bank had any obligation to follow up on the concerns expressed by Felix’s mother in February 2021 that Felix’s funds were being misspent. She provided no evidence to suggest a serious possibility of fraud, and it acted correctly by pointing out that she should discuss what was a civil matter with a legal representative. Finally, we considered the bank, despite some delays and partial responses, had responded to the core of her complaint correctly and efficiently.

Outcome

We did not uphold Felix’s mother’s complaint.