Embark Investment Services Limited · DRN-6292610

The complaint Mr W complains that Embark Investment Services Limited ("Embark") failed to automatically close his General Investment Account (GIA) when it should have done. He’s unhappy that the account remained open for around 17 months longer than it should have. He also says the compensation of £50 offered by Embark does not fairly reflect the impact on him, particularly given his physical impairments. What happened Mr W opened the GIA on 28 February 2023. A direct debit was set up but no payments were ever collected and the GIA remained unfunded. On 12 July 2023, the account moved into a “closing” status. Under Embark’s process, the account should have automatically closed six months later, on or around 12 January 2024. This didn’t happen. Mr W says he believed the account had been closed. He became aware it was still open on 25 June 2025 and contacted Lloyds Bank – who he thought was the business responsible – to request closure. The instruction was passed to Embark on 27 June 2025, and the account was closed on 30 June 2025. Embark issued its Final Response Letter (“FRL”) on 1 July 2025, conceding the error, apologising, and offering £50 compensation. Following this, it wrote to Mr W on 2 July 2025 and 21 July 2025 requesting bank details in order to pay the compensation. Embark also said that it had attempted to contact Mr W by phone while investigating the complaint. Unhappy with Embark’s response, Mr W referred the complaint to our service. One of our investigators considered the complaint but didn’t think it should be upheld. In summary she said that the period of active impact was short and that £50 was a reasonable award. Mr W disagreed with the investigator’s view and asked for an ombudsman’s decision. In summary, he said: • the error lasted around 17 months, so it wasn’t a short issue; • the impact shouldn’t be measured only from when he became aware of it; • he was caused additional inconvenience by repeated requests for bank details; • his physical impairments – affecting fine motor control and mobility – made writing and administrative tasks more difficult; • his preference for written communication wasn’t properly followed; • the overall impact, particularly in light of his circumstances, wasn’t reflected by the £50 offered. He also referred to the Equality Act 2010, saying the impact on him as a disabled person and the need for reasonable adjustments should be considered. Embark said that it had tried to call him to progress the complaint and wasn’t aware Mr W didn’t want to be contacted this way.

-- 1 of 5 --

Through the investigator, I canvassed whether Mr W would accept up to £100 compensation, but he didn’t. He reiterated that the failure was prolonged (from July 2023 to June 2025), the administrative burden was greater for him due to his physical difficulties, and that the compensation didn’t reflect the overall impact. He also said proper account should be taken of disability-related impact and reasonable adjustments. As no agreement had been reached, the matter was referred to me for review. On 1 April 2026, I issued my provisional decision, a copy of which is stated below and forms part of my final decision. In the decision I said: “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, subject to any further submissions, provisionally I’m going to uphold this complaint. I think Embark should pay Mr W £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Before explaining why, I’d like to thank the parties for their patience while this matter awaited review by an ombudsman, given the current demand for our service. I also want to acknowledge the strength of feeling Mr W has about this matter. He’s provided submissions, which I’ve read and considered carefully. I hope he won’t take the fact that my findings focus on what I consider to be the central issues, as a discourtesy. The purpose of my decision isn’t to address every single point raised. My role is to consider the evidence presented by Mr W and Embark, and to decide whether Embark treated him fairly and reasonably and, if not, whether that caused him financial loss or other impact. I’ve also taken account of relevant law and regulations, and what I consider to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. It’s not in dispute that Embark made a mistake. The account should’ve automatically closed around January 2024 but remained open until June 2025 – approximately 17 months longer than it should have. I'm satisfied this was an administrative failing on Embark's part. When assessing what compensation is fair, I need to consider the actual impact on Mr W, not simply the duration of the error. Our service's approach is that compensation for distress and inconvenience reflects the impact on the individual. I’m satisfied that Mr W wasn’t aware of the error during the 17-month period it lasted. There’s also no evidence that the open GIA exposed him to financial risk or adverse consequences during that time. So, despite what Mr W says, I don’t think the period between January 2024, and June 2025, caused him distress and inconvenience in a practical sense while it was ongoing. I understand that Mr W disagrees with my opinion. The point is not that the duration of the error is wholly irrelevant; it arguably reflects the seriousness of the administrative failure and is a factor I’m mindful of. But in terms of quantifying the impact on Mr W personally, the material period of distress and inconvenience began when he discovered the error and had to engage with closing the account. This is the period during which he was directly affected. However, based on what Mr W says, I don’t think that my observations ought to minimise what he went through. The discovery that an account he believed was closed many months ago, was still open – through no fault of his own – was likely to have caused him some frustration. And the process of resolving this issue involved contacting Lloyds, a referral to Embark, the closure itself, and then repeated written requests for bank details in order to

-- 2 of 5 --

receive the compensation. That represents a meaningful amount of administrative engagement, even if it took place over a short period. I note Mr W has explained that he has physical impairments affecting his fine motor control and mobility. I accept that this would – more likely than not – make tasks such as handling correspondence and managing administrative matters more difficult and time-consuming than for many other customers. I’m also mindful of our service’s guidance that makes clear that the same mistake can have a different impact on different people, and that vulnerable customers could be more severely impacted by a mistake, making a higher award more likely – particularly if the business was aware of its customer's circumstances. Mr W has raised the Equality Act 2010. It’s not for me to make a legal determination about whether Embark breached that Act. However, I am required to consider what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, and that includes having regard to the underlying principles of fairness toward customers with protected characteristics and additional needs. I have done so in reaching my decision. Having considered all the key arguments, I am satisfied that Mr W is owed more than £50 initially offered by Embark. The question is what amount is fair and reasonable. Our service’s guidance suggests that an award between £100 and up to £300 might be suitable where there have been repeated small errors, or a larger single mistake, requiring a reasonable amount of effort to sort out. I think Mr W’s case sits within that range. I note that Mr W opened an account then did nothing with it, which led to an automated closure, which Embark did not successfully complete. The error here was a single systemic failure, but it lasted 17 months. I’m mindful that the issue was only resolved after Mr W himself contacted Lloyds and was then referred to Embark. Resolving the matter also required several steps of administrative engagement, and correspondence. And Mr W's impairment meant that this was more onerous for him and impacted him harder than other customers without physical impairments. Taking everything into account, I think £150 fairly reflects the overall impact on Mr W – including the frustration of discovering a prolonged error, the practical steps needed to resolve it, and the additional burden those steps carried given his physical difficulties. I appreciate that Mr W might disagree with my award and conclusion, but I think it’s reasonable. I’m mindful that the account was closed within three working days of him contacting Lloyds, there was no financial loss, and the period of active engagement was relatively short. On the face of the available evidence, and on balance, I’m satisfied that amount I've provisionally awarded reflects the individual impact on Mr W, with an uplift for his circumstances, and I'm satisfied it is fair and reasonable.” I gave the parties an opportunity to respond to my provisional decision and provide any further submissions they wished me to consider before I considered my final decision, if appropriate to do so. Embark responded and accepted my provisional decision. It said it wasn’t aware of any vulnerability indicators until these were brought to its attention. It maintains that Mr W didn’t engage with it at the relevant time. It says that once it became aware of Mr W’s preference not to be contacted by telephone, it adjusted its approach and communicated with him in writing. The business has also asked for guidance on what it could have done differently in the circumstances.

-- 3 of 5 --

Mr W also responded but didn’t accept my provisional decision. He says that Embark has sought to minimise its failings by suggesting it was unaware of any vulnerability indicators and by attributing responsibility to him for an alleged lack of engagement. Mr W says he had already made clear his preference for written communication, and that it was the responsibility of the business to recognise and act upon this. He argues that any steps taken by Embark after becoming aware of his circumstances don’t negate the distress and inconvenience already caused. Mr W also considers that Embark’s request for guidance demonstrates shortcomings in its processes. Overall, he maintains that the level of compensation does not fairly reflect the impact of the business’s failings and asks that it be increased. 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, in light of no new material submissions from either party in response to my provisional decision, my decision to uphold this complaint remains the same, principally for the same reasons as set out in my provisional decision. I note Embark's acceptance of my provisional decision. It has clarified that it was unaware of any vulnerability indicators until these were brought to its attention, and that once it became aware of Mr W's communication preferences, it adjusted its approach and communicated with him in writing. I’ve no reason to doubt that. I've also considered Mr W's further submissions carefully and understand why he believes that the compensation is not enough. But in the main these are points I’ve already considered when reaching my provisional decision. They don't persuade me to depart from it and award greater compensation. On the face of the evidence, and on balance, I'm satisfied that Embark made an administrative error that left Mr W's GIA open approximately 17 months longer than it should have; that the material period of distress and inconvenience was the period during which he was actively affected; that his physical impairments made the administrative burden of resolving the matter more onerous for him than it would have been for many other customers; and that £150 fairly and reasonably reflects the overall impact on him, with an uplift for his circumstances. I appreciate that Mr W will disagree with my decision. I don't doubt the strength of his feelings. But on the available evidence, and on balance, I can’t give him what he wants. Putting things right To put things right, Embark Investment Services Limited should pay Mr W £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. My final decision For the reasons set out above, and in my provisional decision, I uphold this complaint. Embark Investment Services Limited should pay Mr W compensation as set out above.

-- 4 of 5 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr W to accept or reject my decision before 13 May 2026. Dara Islam Ombudsman

-- 5 of 5 --