Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax · DRN-5809121

The complaint Mr B complains about the way Bank of Scotland plc trading as Halifax (Halifax) handled a transaction at its branch. What happened The details of the complaint are well known to both parties, so I will not repeat them again here. Instead, I will focus on the reasons for my decision. 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. Having done so, my review leads me to the same overall conclusion as the investigator, and for broadly the same reasons. Here my decision is based on an impartial review of the evidence presented and is not a judgement of anyone’s character. Nor is it based on simply taking either side’s word over the other. Mr B has given us plausible testimony, and Halifax has also presented evidence. So here I’ve looked at the balance of all the evidence in order to assess what’s most likely to have happened. As the investigator’s view set out the full facts, the dispute, and the evidence provided, I will not repeat every detail here - only those that form the basis of my decision. If I have not mentioned something, it is not because I have ignored it. I am satisfied I do not need to comment on every individual point to reach what I believe is the right outcome. Our rules allow for this. From what I’ve seen, Mr B states he visited a Halifax branch on 3 March 2025 with the intention of paying his credit card balance in full - £4,611.05. He mentions that after the cash was deposited into the Teller Cash Recycler (TCR) he was informed that there was a £140 discrepancy showing. I note what Mr B says about the cash having been counted and placed in a sealed bag before his visit to the branch. And that despite a hand count being requested, prior to the deposit being made, he says this was declined by the staff member because the branch was using a TCR machine. Halifax explains that where TCR machines are used, hand counts are not required. And as this is an internal process that Halifax has implemented to be used for large cash deposits – and it is not within our remit to instruct the bank to change its operational procedures – I am satisfied that Halifax was reasonable in refusing to hand count the cash as requested by Mr B. I can see from evidence presented by Halifax, that the TCR records show that it had balanced without any discrepancy on the day in question, and there was also no error

-- 1 of 2 --

showing both the day before and the day after the attempted deposit. So, on balance given there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, although I appreciate that this doesn’t help Mr B with providing any answers as to what may have happened to the additional £140, he believed was present in the sealed bag, I’m satisfied that there was no error made on the part of Halifax. Furthermore, Halifax has shown there were no payments applied to the consumer’s credit card in March, April, or May 2025. So, I am satisfied that Mr B’s credit file has been updated accordingly, and in line with the bank’s obligations to record accurate data - which is what I would expect. I appreciate Mr B has presented a stamped statement indicating a payment was made. However, this doesn’t seem to be consistent with the bank’s internal note which I can see says: ‘Payment of £4,611.05 not made. Statement stamped but not signed. Customer did not proceed because of cash discrepancy, Counted by another colleague as well’. So, on this basis, it seems more likely than not that the payment did not proceed due to the cash discrepancy. And on balance, given the sum of cash we are considering here, I’m persuaded the additional evidence provided by Halifax supports this. Finally, I understand it must be frustrating for Mr B that the CCTV footage is no longer available. But I think it’s important to highlight that given the nature of the dispute here, the footage itself would’ve most likely not shown us anything further to help explain the discrepancy disputed. Here it’s not in dispute that Mr B handed over some cash in a sealed bag, and the footage most likely wouldn’t conclusively show what exact amounts were handed over in the bag. Generally, such footage also doesn’t have sound, so one wouldn’t be able to hear what was being said. As such, while I appreciate why Mr B wanted us to view it, it’s not clear that the footage would’ve been determinative here anyway. And I’m afraid the fact it’s not available remains, so I’ve had to assess the case based on the evidence I do have. In summary, having weighed up all the available evidence, although I appreciate Mr B’s position, in light of the evidence, I can’t reasonably say that Halifax has done anything wrong. So, I won’t be asking it to do anymore here. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 22 April 2026. Sukhdeep Judge Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --