Wilson complained to the bank about its decision, and it then gave the reason: he had made comments that staff found inappropriate and made them feel uncomfortable about having further contact with him. Wilson considered the bank had a duty to at least meet him and explain the nature of the discomfort that staff had felt in response to what he considered to be genuine commercial questions he had put to staff. Wilson said he believed the bank was lying and that the real reason it had refused to open business accounts was that it had found out about a disagreement he was having with another bank.

Our investigation

Banks can choose whether to take on a person as a customer, just as a person can choose to do business with one bank over another. They are under no obligation to take on a prospective customer. We consider it best practice for banks to give a reason for refusing to open an account for someone, although there is no obligation to do so. If, however, banks give a reason, they should communicate that reason clearly and accurately. The bank was not obliged to give Wilson a reason in its email. When he questioned this decision, the bank chose to tell him the reason, and it communicated that reason in a way we found to be clear and accurate. It was up to the bank to decide whether Wilson’s comments were sufficiently uncomfortable or inappropriate to warrant the decision to refuse his request. It was not our role to judge the validity of the reason.

Outcome

 We did not uphold Wilson’s complaint.