THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK P.L.C. · DRN-6213365

The complaint X complains that THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK P.L.C. (The Co-op) unfairly refused to pay the full amount due under a ‘Switch & Stay’ incentive. What happened In May 2025, The Co-op was offering a ‘Switch & Stay’ incentive payment to customers who switched an existing account they held elsewhere to it and stayed with it. Part A of the incentive was a £100 payment which became payable when the switch was completed. X opened a qualifying account and received the £100 on 3 June 2025. Part B of the incentive included three further £25 payments. Each £25 payment became payable in each of the following three months (one payment per month) subject to: £1,000+ being deposited each month; 10 or more card transactions having been made each month; and there being two active direct debits on the account. This was subject to these events happening during a qualifying period. X received two £25 payments on 4 August 2025 (second month) and 4 September 2025 (third month). X complained to The Co-op as they had not received the £25 payment due for the first month. The Co-op didn’t uphold the complaint saying that X hadn’t met the terms of the incentive offer as 10 card transactions had not been made during the first month’s qualifying criteria - 4 June to 3 July 2025. Unhappy with the outcome X referred the complaint to this service. At this stage, The Co-op told us that - as a gesture, it was prepared to offer £25 to X in full and final settlement of the complaint. One of our investigators put the offer to X but they declined it. So, the investigator looked into what had happened. But she thought the incentive payment terms and conditions were clear and she was satisfied that X hadn’t qualified for the first £25 payment as 10 cards payments had not been made during the qualifying period. So, she thought The Co-op’s offer to pay X £25 when it hadn’t done anything wrong was fair. X disagreed with the investigator, so the complaint has been passed to me. 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’ve come to the same overall conclusion as the investigator for broadly the same reasons. I know X will be disappointed, so I’ll explain why. I have reviewed the full ‘Switch & Stay’ terms and conditions. In relation to the three ‘stay’ incentive payments, these say: ‘Section B: 3 x £25 ‘Stay’ Incentive

-- 1 of 3 --

The Offer and eligibility 3. We will pay the sum of £25 per month, for up to 3 months to an eligible customer who meets the offer criteria and eligibility in Section B, on or after the fulfilment of the criteria in section A, In Section B of these terms an ‘Eligible Customer’ means any applicant who: 3.1 Has successfully qualified for and received payment of the £100 Switch Incentive in section A, and. 3.2 In each full month, following the receipt of the £100 Switch Incentive payment in section A; a) has deposited £1,000+ into the qualifying current account, and; b) has made 10 or more card transactions from the qualifying current account (this does not include pending payments), and; c) on the final day of the qualifying period, has 2 active Direct Debits on the qualifying current account. 4. The qualifying period for month 1 will commence the day following payment of the £100 incentive in section A. The period will then run to (but not including) the same date of the following month. The qualifying periods for month 2 & 3 will commence on the day following the end of the previous qualifying period, and again run for the duration of a month. Example scenario: A customer completes the requirements for the incentive payment in Section A, and receives their £100 incentive payment into their qualifying current account on 14th May. The qualifying periods for the 3 additional months would therefore be: • Month 1: 15th May – 14th June • Month 2: 15th June – 14th July • Month 3: 15th July – 14th August I find this information to be clear in that the qualifying period for the further ‘Stay’ incentive payments started the day after the initial £100 payment was credited to the qualifying account. In the case here, X’s account was credited with £100 on 3 June 2025. And based on the example scenario provided within the terms, I’m satisfied the qualifying periods relevant in this case were: • Month 1: 4 June - 3 July • Month 2: 4 July - 3 August • Month 3: 4 August - 3 September But X says the emails received from The Co-op contained errors. X has specifically said that dates such as 4 July 2025 overlapped and 4 August 2025 wasn’t mentioned. So, I’ve looked at the emails X has provided. I’ve seen that the email dated 3 June says: ‘In order to be eligible for your first payment, you must complete the following criteria between 04/06/2025 and 04/07/2025’. And X has told us that the subsequent emails said the qualifying period is: ‘between 04/07/2025 and 03/08/2025’ and ‘05/08/2025 and 03/09/2025’ respectively.

-- 2 of 3 --

So, I accept X’s point that the dates given in the emails don’t align exactly with the wording in the terms of the offer as 4 July overlaps month 1 and month 2, and 4 August is not mentioned. But, having thought about this carefully, I’m not persuaded this makes a difference to the outcome of this complaint. Having looked at X’s transaction history on their account for the period 4 June 2025 – 4 July 2025 (the dates in the email for the month the ‘Stay’ incentive payment wasn’t paid), I’m satisfied that X didn’t undertake the required number of card transactions – as set out in the terms, to qualify for that month’s payment. However, The Co-op has since offered put X back in the position they would have been in if they had qualified for the first monthly incentive payment. So, I’m satisfied that X hasn’t lost out financially because of the slight variance in the qualifying dates set out in the emails. I appreciate that X has taken time to pursue a complaint with The Co-op and subsequently this service. But the time taken to raise and follow up a complaint is not – in itself, a reason to award compensation. And here I’ve seen that The Co-op responded to X’s complaint within the timescales I would expect and provided referral rights to this service. As X didn’t meet the criteria for the first ‘Stay’ incentive payment, overall, I think The Co-op’s offer to pay £25 is a fair way to resolve the complaint. So, I won’t be telling The Co-op to take any further action in respect of this complaint. Although, The Co-op may wish to look into the wording of its emails to ensure the dates align more appropriately with the switch and stay terms. My final decision For the reasons I’ve given above, I uphold this complaint. The CO-OPERATIVE BANK P.L.C. should now pay X £25 if it hasn’t already done so. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask X to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Sandra Greene Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --