Rudy accepted that the bank was required to hold and use his legal name in some circumstances but saw no reason why it could not consistently use his preferred name in communications sent to him where there was no requirement to use his legal name – like marketing materials or surveys. He also complained that people who sent him money received a “partial” match from the confirmation of payee system, and this created unnecessary friction and concern.

Our investigation

The bank was required to record and retain Rudy’s full legal name to meet regulatory obligations to verify and maintain accurate information about its customers’ identities. The confirmation of payee check compares the first and last names entered by the payer with the legal first and last names of the payee as recorded by the bank. It was not inaccurate or misleading for Rudy’s legal first name to be referenced for a confirmation of payee check.

Banks are entitled to determine how their systems operate, provided they comply with their legal, contractual and industry obligations. Rudy’s bank was under no obligation to use his preferred name in all communications. It had recorded his preferred name, so staff could use it in manual correspondence and verbal conversations. Staff sometimes accidentally addressed him as Miguel, but we did not consider these occasional instances sufficient to establish that the bank had failed to treat Rudy fairly and reasonably.

The bank had recorded Rudy’s preference and taken reasonable steps to accommodate it where its systems allowed. It did not have to modify those systems to ensure it used his preferred name in every communication sent to him.

Outcome

We did not uphold Rudy’s complaint.