A woman who moved abroad remained a customer with a credit institution and, in 1996 and 1997, invested in two investment bonds, following a number of telephone discussions. The woman later complained that the institution had deducted deposit interest retention tax (DIRT) on the interest earned on her savings.

As a non-resident, she should have been exempt from DIRT. She also said that the fact that her money was "locked in" the bonds for the full investment term had not been properly explained. The institution responded that the complainant had never filed a change of address or queried the account status. It denied any responsibility to ensure that customers entitled to receive interest without paying DIRT actually received their interest without deduction. It said the long-term bonds had been suitable for her because she had access to substantial money on demand elsewhere.

The Ombudsman found that, given the absence of any documentary evidence of a fact-find, the institution had not satisfied its duty of care to the complainant to find out if the bonds were suitable investments for her situation.

On the DIRT issue, he noted that the institution had implemented a policy whereby accounts with a balance below a certain amount could not qualify for non-resident status.

He found the institution was fully aware of the complainant's residence abroad but had failed in its duty to her, as it never discussed the DIRT aspect with her, even in general terms. He directed the institution to pay the complainant damages of €1,500.