International money transfer specialist's exchange rate was less than the couple had hoped for – and so was the compensation it offered.
What happened
Sue and Stanley sold a property abroad and needed to transfer the proceeds from euros to pounds. Due to health issues, they asked their friend Percival to manage the process. Percival contacted a specialist financial business, requesting quotes for the currency conversion.
Percival explained he didn’t want to be a signatory on the account, just oversee the transaction. He asked about next steps and the financial business talked him through registering an account and transferring the funds.
The next day, Percival talked to the financial business again about opening Sue and Stanley’s joint account.
Then the financial business rang Sue to confirm the details of the receiving account. Stanley was with her when she took the call. The business said they’d missed that day’s cut-off but could complete the transfer by the next working day.
The contract was agreed and the currency exchange went ahead.
But afterwards, Sue and Stanley looked online at exchange rates and were disappointed with what they’d received. Percival complained to the financial business, saying the final sum was thousands of pounds below what their foreign bank had led them to expect.
And Sue had only accepted the rate because she thought Percival had already agreed to it. Percival was also surprised that the financial business had called Sue to finalise things when it knew he was overseeing the process. He suspected the business had acted unfairly and complained.
In response, the financial business said it had made clear how much the couple would get in sterling. However, as a gesture of goodwill, they offered the couple £2,000 in compensation.
But Sue, Stanley and Percival were still unhappy so brought the complaint to us.
What we said
We looked at all the evidence and arguments.
Sue and Stanley may have been able to find a better exchange rate elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean the financial business was being unfair.
The financial business was clear that it only provides a service and doesn’t give advice. It knew about Sue and Stanley’s ill health. But as Percival wasn’t named on the account, instructions had to come straight from Sue and Stanley.
We listened to call recordings of Sue and Stanley both agreeing to the deal, speaking with a staff member they already knew. Sue led the call, and the amount in pounds was confirmed three times. They weren’t pressured, and they didn’t show any sign of wanting to delay.
We also noted that the financial business had calculated the exchange rate fairly and in line with its policies. We thought the £2,000 compensation offered was generous.
We didn’t think the financial business had done anything wrong and did not uphold this complaint.