Lloyds Bank Plc · DRN-6227602

The complaint Mr S complains that when using the Immediate Deposit Machine (IDM) in a Lloyds Bank Plc branch to make a cash deposit it developed a fault and the cash was not paid into his account. Mr S complains that the cash was not credited and available to use in his account over the weekend which caused him unnecessary stress and inconvenience. Mr S further complains about the service he received in branch. What happened On 30 August Mr S visited a branch to deposit £600 cash to his account. Whilst using the IDM an error occurred, and the cash was retained but no deposit was applied to his account. The Branch Manager told Mr S she would balance the machine after the branch closed for the day at 1pm. This was done and the funds were credited to Mr S’s account. Mr S said Lloyds hadn’t followed their own process when the IDM malfunctioned Mr S expressed concern that cash handling was done under sole control only. Our investigator explained that this is in line with Lloyds’ accepted process and that we don’t have the powers to tell Lloyds to change its processes or procedures. Mr S says that the Branch Manager mischaracterised him when she said that other customers had commented on his behaviour. Our investigator said that having listened to the telephone call with the adviser she didn’t think that the Branch Manager was saying that Mr S’s behaviour was inappropriate, only that another customer had approached her with a comment on his behaviour. Our investigator reviewed the Lloyds cash handling process and said it had been followed correctly. Our investigator felt the issue with the rejected cash deposit was resolved promptly, and the £40 compensation paid by Lloyds was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Mr S didn’t agree with the investigators view and asked that it be referred to an Ombudsman. My Provisional findings I repeat below the main points of my provisional decision.

-- 1 of 4 --

The facts of this complaint are well known to all so I will concentrate on the main issues that Mr S would like me to address. I should mention I would not reasonably expect Lloyds to provide Mr S with specific details of internal processes and procedures which relate to how it handles cash, or that is otherwise security sensitive. Did Lloyds follow the correct procedure Mr S says that Lloyds didn’t take the machine out of service after the error occurred and asks what would have happened if it malfunctioned again and another customer also claimed funds had been retained and not credited. It’s important for me to explain that I can only consider what did happen, not what Mr S thinks could have happened. Additionally, I don’t have the powers to tell Lloyds what its processes should be. I can only ask them to put things right if something has gone wrong and I feel those processes failed. Lloyds have confirmed that the machine remained open and that no further issues were experienced. I think it reasonable that for the convenience of customers they would not take the machine out of service if the fault was a ‘one-off’. The Final Resolution Letter issued by Lloyds seeks to reassure by telling him it couldn’t happen because the machine would be ‘switched off’. I recognise the contradiction between this response and what happened. I appreciate this could be confusing for Mr S. Lloyds have provided me with a copy of their internal process for dealing with IDM errors, I am satisfied that the correct process was followed by the staff in branch. During the phone call Mr S made whilst in branch to log his complaint, his concerns about the process for dealing with faults on the IDM were reinforced by the telephony agent who attempted to offer a solution on a topic with which she admitted to not being familiar. These solutions included suggesting that Mr S ask the Branch Manager to make sure the cash was counted by two members of staff, and suggesting he could stay in the branch after it had closed to make sure it was done. I don’t think these were reasonable suggestions by the agent. Taking both the words of the telephony agent, and the contradictory process information into account I can understand why Mr S may not be satisfied with the FRL he was given. When were the funds available to use The Branch Manager completed a cash check of the machine after the branch closed and the £600 was applied to his account. Mr S says that he checked his account multiple times over the weekend and the funds weren’t available. Lloyds have provided me with evidence of the time the funds were credited to the account on 30 August. I am satisfied that the funds were available for Mr S to use from 1.51pm that same day.

-- 2 of 4 --

There was a delay of just over two hours in the cash being deposited at the IDM and it being available for him to use. The entry appears on Mr S’s statement as 1 September because the 30 August was a weekend and not a banking day. This didn’t affect his ability to access and use the funds. Lloyds have provided me with a log of Mr S’s mobile app banking activity which doesn’t show any activity between 1.49pm on 30 August and 10.26am 1 September. In his call with the telephony adviser Mr S said he had money in another account he could use so it wasn’t “life and death”, and so I don’t think the delay in the credit being applied to his account caused Mr S any major problems. Lloyds have paid Mr S £40 compensation, and I think this is fair and reasonable for the slight delay experienced. Mischaracterisation of behaviour Mr S says that his behaviour in branch was mischaracterised by the Branch Manager. I can understand why Mr S would find this concerning. During the call with telephony the Branch Manager joined and said she had been told by another customer that Mr S was “kicking off”. I don’t think she herself was saying that he was. I have however seen the Lloyds incident logs from 30 August and can confirm that they make no mention of Mr S’s behaviour. I hope this will offer Mr S some reassurance. Whilst I don’t think the delay in receiving the credit was of major inconvenience, I do think there have been other shortfalls in service which persuade me that a change of outcome is appropriate: • The telephony agent suggested to Mr S that he could ask the Branch Manager to deviate from Lloyd’s cash handling process to mitigate his concerns and in doing so created an unrealistic expectation. This suggestion didn’t consider security processes already in place which Lloyds are rightly unable to share with Mr S. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a member of staff to ask a customer to act as a middleman between staff members. • Mr S was promised a phone call once the funds had been applied to his account, I can’t see that this happened. Our investigator asked Lloyds to confirm that the call had been made, but they haven’t done so. Had this call been made to Mr S when his account was credited with the £600 then I think it’s likely some of the confusion could have been avoided and the relationship rebuilt. • The Final Response Letter in which Lloyds said the IDM would be taken out of service if a fault develops, contradicts what happened and so didn’t offer Mr S the reassurance he sought. Overall, I don’t consider that the service Mr S received after the error occurred met the standards I would expect. And so, in addition to the compensation already paid, I think it would be fair and reasonable for Lloyds to pay Mr H a further £40 in recognition of the shortfalls in service I’ve mentioned.

-- 3 of 4 --

Responses to my provisional decision Mr S accepted the provisional decision. Lloyds Bank Plc didn’t respond to the provisional 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. In view of the responses, I have no reason to change my provisional decision. My final decision I uphold this complaint. I require Lloyds Bank plc to: • Pay Mr S a further £40 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr S to accept or reject my decision before 13 April 2026. Petina Edwards Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --