Cynergy Bank Plc · DRN-6175260

The complaint Mr M complains that Cynergy Bank Plc didn’t tell him it might not increase the interest rate on his ISA, despite increases in the Bank of England’s rate. He also complains he was expected to apply for new issues of his ISA so as to benefit from the rates they offered. What happened Mr M opened his ISA in August 2020. In March 2023 Mr M contacted Cynergy to express his unhappiness that the interest rate on his account hadn’t gone up. He said he’d expected the variable rate to fluctuate depending on market conditions, such as the Bank of England’s rate, but his interest rate hadn’t increased. He noted that Cynergy released new issues of the ISA and that, to benefit from a higher rate, he would need to open a new issue ISA with Cynergy and transfer the funds over from his old one. He said Cynergy hadn’t made this clear in its terms and conditions. During Mr M’s interactions with Cynergy on the matter, he also encountered several service issues – such as a delay in logging his complaint and incorrect information from Cynergy’s agents. And, while Cynergy offered Mr M a total of £75 to make up for the service issues, it didn’t think it had done anything wrong regarding Mr M’s ISA’s rates. It told Mr M its terms said the rates ‘may’ change, and that he could switch his existing ISA to a new issue. It added that all of its rates were published on its website and online banking platform for review. Dissatisfied, Mr M brought his complaint to our service. He told us it wasn't made clear to him how the account needed to be operated in order to maintain a competitive interest rate. He said he would have needed to repeatedly open a new ISA, transfer funds over, and then close the superseded ISA. As a result, he said he’d lost out on interest. Our Investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. He found that for the period Mr M’s complaint covered, there was no requirement on Cynergy to make him aware of new issues or other savings rates. Nor did he think Cynergy needed to set the rates for Mr M’s ISA at a particular level or follow the Bank of England’s base rate. Our Investigator also considered whether Cynergy’s total offer did enough to make up for its service failings and he was satisfied it did. Mr M didn’t accept the view. He said the fundamental basis for his complaint was that Cynergy hadn’t told him it might not increase the variable rate of his ISA despite the Bank of England’s base rate increasing. And while he could have opened other issues with Cynergy, he highlighted he was never made aware that he needed to manage his account in this way. As no agreement could be reached, the case was passed to me to decide. 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, I won’t be upholding this complaint. I realise this won’t be the outcome that

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr M wanted, and so I’ve set out the reasons for my decision below. In deciding what’s fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of this complaint, I need to take into account the rules and regulations relevant at the time, amongst other things. For clarity I will make reference to any relevant rules and regulations I rely on below. The dates this complaint spans – August 2020 when Mr M’s ISA was opened, until May 2023 when it was closed – mean that the relevant rules and regulations in place at the relevant time include Principle 6 (a firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly) and 7 (A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading) of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA’s) Handbook. The FCA’s Consumer Duty, a higher set of standards introduced on 31 July 2023 doesn’t apply here because it came into force after the events this decision covers and isn’t retrospective. Mr M has accepted the Consumer Duty doesn’t apply to his complaint, and so I’ve taken account of the remaining relevant rules in place at the time when determining what’s fair and reasonable in all the circumstances here. Mr M says no other ISA providers left their variable rates unaltered over such a long period of time, and finds this at odds with Cynergy’s approach. He accepts that the detail of his interest rate was made available to him, and confirms receipt of an email from Cynergy in 2021 which told him his rate would be reducing. But he says his main concerns are around Cynergy not explaining that rates might not rise for his ISA, or that, in order to benefit from better rates, he would need to take out subsequent issues of Cynergy’s ISAs and transfer his funds. And so my starting point for this complaint is to assess whether Cynergy was obliged to give Mr M the above-mentioned information. I must also decide if the information it did give met the regulatory standards I’ve already set out. Cynergy’s terms say it may change the interest rate applied to Mr M’s ISA for several reasons. One of the reasons it gives is to respond proportionately to a change in the Bank of England’s rate. I note Cynergy said it ‘may’ change the applicable interest rate, meaning that it didn’t guarantee it would. As such, I think it’s clear that it was at Cynergy’s discretion as to when or why it might vary the rate on an account. And I haven’t seen anything in the terms which obliges Cynergy to change or vary the rate in set circumstances. Further, Cynergy’s use of the word ‘may’ indicates rates might not rise. So while I can see that Mr M was surprised that his rate hadn’t risen as he expected or, indeed – at all, I nonetheless think this was a foreseeable outcome based on the wording of the terms. I’ve also thought about Mr M’s concerns around Cynergy releasing new issues of the ISA account he held. I can’t see there was any obligation on Cynergy’s part – either in its terms, or in the applicable regulations – to instruct Mr M on how best to manage his ISA with Cynergy. With an easy access savings product like Mr M’s, there was an onus on customers to monitor their savings accounts and make sure they were getting the best value for them in a competitive market. Cynergy published its rates on its website, and elsewhere, and has confirmed that Mr M would have been able to apply for these rates without penalty. And so I don’t find that Cynergy acted unfairly or unreasonably in the circumstances. In offering these new issues of the account, paying different (and higher) rates, I can’t see that the terms and conditions of Mr M’s account obliged the bank to notify him about these. But I do see Mr M’s point that, as a variable account, he had an expectation to have received some of the benefit of a rising interest rate market. But, equally, I don’t think Cynergy needed to automatically increase the rate on Mr M’s account to be in-line with new issues of

-- 2 of 3 --

the product that it put on sale for customers. The rate of interest offered on the new issues of the product represented what it was willing to offer new customers at that time, and it was entitled to do that to achieve its commercial aims. Finally, I’ve thought about whether Cynergy’s total offer of £75 has done enough to make up for the various service failings Mr M has raised, and I think it has. Whilst I understand that it can be frustrating to not receive the level of service one expects, this doesn’t mean that compensation – or further compensation – is merited. In many cases, even though there has been a certain degree of inconvenience or distress, it will not be appropriate for this service to tell a bank to pay more compensation, especially when the compensation already offered is broadly within the realms of the guidelines published on our website. As Cynergy’s total offer reflects what I understand of the impact of its failings, I won’t be directing it to do anything further. So while I realise this decision will be disappointing for Mr M, I haven’t identified any failing which persuades me to direct Cynergy to reimburse interest or pay further compensation. My final decision My final decision is I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. James Akehurst Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --