Non-binary customers win compensation for being asked if they are male or female

MoneySuperMarket and Transunion criticised over lack of Mx option on application forms

Financial services firms have been forced to pay hundreds of pounds in compensation to non-binary customers over “discriminatory” application forms. 
MoneySuperMarket (MSM), the comparison website, and Transunion, a credit union, were hit with separate complaints because their application forms did not include options for non-binary customers in their gender section.
Both cases were escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which awarded the complainants compensation for “distress and disappointment” incurred from the forms.
MSM was ordered to pay £200 to unnamed non-binary customer Mx B who was asked if they were male or female.
The company’s website did acknowledge the omission in an explanatory note and asked non-binary customers to refer to their sex at birth when asking for quotes, the complaint read.
The note stated that it would not impact the individual insurance pricing offered.
According to the complaint, MSM argued that changes to their website are bound by the information their insurance partners ask for and that many of them have not made provision for customers who identify as non-binary.
The ombudsman noted that being non-binary is not recognised as a gender in law but it is a protected characteristic of the Equality Act 2010.
The ruling read: “My starting point is whether they have been treated differently to any other customer who has a different gender identity. And, I think they have been. 
“I can see from what Mx B has told us that this did, understandably, cause them distress and upset. And that they were stressed and disappointed.”
Separately, Transunion was criticised by a customer for not providing an Mx option, a title used for non-binary people in place of Mr or Mrs.
Unnamed complainant Mx E was awarded £350 from the company as they were unable to use their correct title when obtaining their statutory credit report online.
After numerous attempts to resolve the dispute, Mx E took the case to the FOS.
Transunion argued that the title Mx is not legally protected under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and that the individual’s title has no bearing on their ability to gain access to credit.
The ombudsman concluded that, despite Transunion changing their system to include the title Mx, the company did not make this update swiftly enough.
The ruling said: “Mx E has told us that the events surrounding the complaint made them feel they had to justify their non-binary identity and go through a process of ‘proving I exist’.
“It was (or should’ve been) foreseeable to Transunion that this was potentially offensive and distressing. Having listened to Mx E’s account, I’m persuaded that they experienced both stress and upset as a result of this matter.”
An industry source told The Telegraph that for many companies using legacy systems, it would be difficult and expensive to adjust their forms. 
A spokesman for MSM said: “Many of the insurers and financial services providers that we work with have systems that currently only refer to a binary concept of gender. We’re actively working with our partners to make non-binary options available.”
A spokesperson for TransUnion said: “We can confirm we have complied in full with the Financial Ombudsman Service decision. We recognise this is an issue all financial services providers need to work together to better address and will continue to make improvements wherever possible.”
Anna Dews, a solicitor in Leigh Day’s human rights team, said: “Although there is currently no statutory legal recognition of non-binary gender identities in the UK, it is completely fair and reasonable that a non-binary person should be able to refer to themselves using the correct pronouns as a customer in the online space.”