The documents showed that the client had little knowledge of German and could hardly express himself in writing. He was represented by a fellow countryman who was admitted to the bar. The receipt for the non-executed payment, which he submitted, showed that the bank had confirmed acceptance of the payment order after checking the client’s signature and that the payment should have been executed on the same day. In its’ reply to the client, the bank stated that it could not verify whether it had accepted the order. No further documents on the processing of the order were available. No corresponding entry was noted on the client’s account statement. He should have checked this statement within 30 days and complained about the omitted payment, which he did not do. She was not prepared to make any concessions.
It was clear to the Ombudsman that the client attached great importance to the payment of the military service tax. He went to the bank’s counter on the same day as he received the documents on the tax and payment instructions at his country’s embassy, on the basis of which the bank completed the payment order and confirmed receipt to the client with a duplicate. In the opinion of the Ombudsman, the client could therefore assume in good faith that this had been carried out accordingly. The bank’s argument that receipt of the order could not be proven was not comprehensible to the Ombudsman.
A closer look at the order form completed by the bank revealed that it could only be used for domestic payments and that the foreign IBAN number of the government’s account with its bank in the client’s country of origin was missing. Only details of the Swiss bank, which apparently processed payments in CHF for the bank of the beneficiary, were listed, and the order did not contain any further instructions.
It was therefore likely for the Ombudsman that the payment order could not be executed with these details. The bank was unable to explain exactly what had happened and whether the client had been notified accordingly, since the process was not documented further. For the Ombudsman, however, there was the assumption of an error on the part of the bank, as the information received from the client from the embassy for the payment was apparently not correctly included in the payment order.

The circumstances suggested that the client had not received any information about the non-execution of the order, as the payment was very important to him and he would certainly have reacted if he had been informed accordingly.
The Ombudsman considered the bank’s statement that the client had an obligation to check the bank statements and to give notice in case of disagreements and errors. However, in view of the client profile and the confirmation of receipt of the order given to him, he considered the reliance on this standard to be doubtful in the specific case if the bank had not specifically informed the client of the non-execution of the transaction. Corresponding documents should still have been available for a process from 2016.
After a further review of the case, the bank agreed with the Ombudsman’s considerations and compensated the client for the additional amount of the military service tax he now owed in the amount of CHF 4 000.