Financial Ombudsman disagrees with Curve’s 720-hour Fronted calculation method
Discuss today's stories:
-
From 13/11/2023 to 21/03/2024, Curve’s terms and conditions stated that its Fronted allowance would have a “Fee-free limit of £3,000 per rolling 30-day period then 2.5% of the transaction amount”.
Many of us were caught out by this during the above period, whereby Curve unexpectedly charged us Fronted fees on day 31 because Curve was operating a rolling 720-hour period instead of its stated rolling 30-day period.
I complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The crux of my complaint was that Section 69(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 codifies the long-established legal doctrine of contra proferentem and states that “If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail”. Given that a period of 30 calendar days is more favourable to the consumer than a period of 720 hours, Curve should have calculated its Fronted fees based on a period of 30 calendar days.
The FOS’s initial investigator sided with Curve, repeating Curve’s weak arguments and made no reference to the content of my complaint, instead falsely summarising my complaint as “You are upset that the terms of your account are changing, specifically the limit being reduced from £10,000 a month to £3,000 a month”, which I had never stated. The initial investigator repeatedly refused to give reasons for disagreeing with the crux of my complaint summarised above. His manager was similarly uncooperative.
In contrast to the initial investigator, the quality of the ombudsman’s final decision was excellent and it was well reasoned. The ombudsman disagreed with the initial investigator and determined that Curve should refund the £71.30 of Fronted fees and pay me £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
I also made a service complaint to the FOS that the initial investigator’s refusal to give his reasons was a breach of Section 228(4)(a) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Eventually the Independent Assessor agreed with me and determined that the FOS should pay me a total of £250 in respect of poor handling of my complaint by the initial investigator and his manager.
Thank you for the update.
Out of interest, have Curve cancelled your card?
Well done for persevering!
Well done. The initial investigator can be very keen to close the case, so persisting in the face of unreasonableness is the correct thing to do. It is surprising they didn’t respond to your arguments. Even more surprising they valued this failure at £250.
Out of interest, have Curve cancelled your card?
No, they didn’t, but I downgraded to a free card as a result of the deterioration in Fronted. The FOS takes a dim view of the closure of accounts in response to complaints.
Well done. The initial investigator can be very keen to close the case, so persisting in the face of unreasonableness is the correct thing to do. It is surprising they didn’t respond to your arguments. Even more surprising they valued this failure at £250.
It became clear that the initial investigator hadn’t read my complaint at all and had read only Curve’s version of events. So he had no reason to give for disagreeing with the crux of my complaint, other than not having read it, which he no doubt didn’t want to admit.
@NFH well done for persevering
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
