DRN-6311705

The complaint Mrs K complains Metro Bank plc allowed an unauthorised individual to access a restricted banking area. She further complains Metro failed to verify her identity when completing transactions in branch. What happened Mrs K visited a Metro branch to complete banking transactions and access her safety deposit box. She states she wasn’t asked for any identification to fulfil these actions. When accessing the restricted banking area where her safety deposit box is stored, Mrs K’s husband accompanied her. She states he’d not been authorised to access this area and Metro breached its security procedures by allowing this. Mrs K raised a complaint to Metro and it didn’t uphold her complaint. It advised branches use photo identification taken when a customer opens an account to verify the account holder is present and confirmed Mrs K’s husband had been added as an authorised person to visit her safety deposit box. Mrs K was unhappy with this response, brought her complaint to this service and an investigator looked into things. The investigator didn’t think Metro had acted unreasonably and agreed with its response to her complaint. Mrs K stated the authorisation for her husband had only been granted after he had visited the restricted area. The investigator reviewed this further, explaining the role of this service and that there was no evidence to suggest Mrs K didn’t want her husband to accompany her. Mrs K was unhappy with this outcome and asked for an ombudsman to decide things. 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 reached the same overall conclusions as the investigator did, and for broadly the same reasons. It’s not the role of this service to review the policies and processes of a business; this is the role of the regulator. My role is to assess whether any mistakes have been made and if Metro have responded fairly and reasonably, and I think they have. Metro has explained it’s process of identifying customers when attending branch, by using a

-- 1 of 2 --

photograph taken when the account is opened. In addition to this, identification isn’t always required depending on the type of transaction being undertaken. Metro have been able to evidence Mrs K attending branch this day, so I’m persuaded Metro followed this process and were satisfied no further ID checks were required. Metro have confirmed that Mrs K has two safety deposit boxes, and her husband was authorised as a visitor on one box ahead of the visit. I have determined Metro did allow Mrs K’s husband into the restricted banking area, but I haven’t determined which box this was for. As Mr K was authorised for one, I’m persuaded Metro followed this authority. During this interaction, Metro staff recognised Mrs K’s husband didn’t have the required access for the box they were visiting, and the form was subsequently completed. I think Metro put steps in place to ensure the necessary authority had been given for future access and Mrs K’s husband was authorised for both her safety deposit boxes. However, Mrs K hasn’t raised there was an issue with her husband accessing the restricted area with her and subsequently, gave authority for him to be able to access this going forwards. My role in this complaint is to assess what is likely to have happened if Metro had followed it’s process, which would have been to prevent Mrs K’s husband accessing the secured area until she had completed the form giving her authority. As she did this during the same visit, I think Mrs K would have always given this authority, the result would have been the same and she would have allowed her husband access to the restricted area with her. Mrs K was happy for her husband to attend the restricted area with her, and only when a staff member pointed out the process hadn’t been followed did she update this and then complain. Mrs K has stated she feels a loss of trust with Metro following this, and I empathise with how this has made her feel. However, as it was Mrs K’s husband who she later granted authority to, I don’t think she was impacted during this scenario. I have considered the complaint and the impact this has had on Mrs K. Whilst I agree Metro made a mistake, I think it quickly put steps into place to resolve this, with a minimal impact to Mrs K and these steps have ensured this mistake won’t happen again. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs K to accept or reject my decision before 26 May 2026. Hannah Edmondson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --