Early withdrawal fee on a savings account following an incorrect transfer

Topic: Fees and charges Case number: 2023/19

The client transferred CHF 90 000 from her savings account to her account at another bank. For reasons that remained unclear, this amount was returned by the recipient bank and credited back to the savings account. Her client advisor at the sender bank advised her to initiate the transfer again, whereupon it was successfully processed. At the end of the year, however, the bank charged the client a non-termination fee of CHF 800 because, in its opinion, the two transfers of CHF 90 000 exceeded the termination-free amount of CHF 100 000 by CHF 80 000. Following the client’s complaint, the bank was only prepared to refund CHF 400, whereupon the client referred the case to the Ombudsman. In the Ombudsman proceedings, the bank finally waived the entire non-termination fee.

The Ombudsman also dealt with complaints about bank charges in this reporting year. This included the present case regarding a so-called early withdrawal fee (or non-termination commission) for violating the withdrawal restriction of a savings account.

Banks normally agree withdrawal restrictions for savings accounts. . If these are violated, fees will be charged. The basis for these provisions is of a regulatory nature and can be found in a FINMA circular on the liquidity risks of banks. A breach of these rules can have serious consequences for a bank. The bank’s terms and conditions applicable in the present case clearly stated that the exemption amount was CHF 100 000 per year, while withdrawals above this limit would be subject to either a notice period or an early withdrawal fee.

The Ombudsman well understands that the fees are assessed automatically and that the bank’s systems in this case assumed two transfers of CHF 90 000 for a total of CHF 180 000, as they could hardly recognize the connection between the failed payment attempt and the successful payment with regard to the fee charge. However, that the client had little understanding for the fact that the bank insisted on its view that two withdrawals totaling CHF 180,000 were involved, was also well comprehensible to him. The bank took this position even after the client’s specific complaint, and only wanted to refund half of the non-termination commission charged as a gesture of goodwill. The bank justified this by stating that the returned amount had been credited back to the savings account and had been there for a few days. It therefore argued that the second transfer was a further withdrawal of the same amount.

The Ombudsman found this approach somewhat formalistic and neither legally nor economically compelling. He assumed that the transaction should be assessed as a whole and that it was therefore effectively only a withdrawal of CHF 90 000, which did not violate the withdrawal limit. He therefore asked the bank to reconsider its position and to waive the entire amount of the non-termination fee for the client. The bank finally complied with this proposal.