Barclays Bank UK PLC · DRN-6022351

The complaint O complains that Barclays Bank UK PLC (Barclays) closed its account and withheld funds. What happened O held a business account with Barclays. In June 2025 Barclays reached out to O to ask for some information regarding a payment it had received. Following O supplying the requested information, and an internal review, Barclays wrote to O on 10 June 2025 explaining it had decided to close its account. The account was closed immediately without notice. Barclays withheld the funds in the account until 29 August 2025 when it wrote to O informing it the funds were available to access by visiting a branch. O’s director had previously visited Barclays branches and called Barclays on multiple occasions and was given conflicting and incorrect information about whether the funds would be available for release and what was needed to facilitate this. O complained to Barclays who responded with its final response letter (FRL) dated 1 September 2025 where it explained it felt the decision to close the account was correct but agreed that there had been some misinformation provided and offered £200 in compensation. O remained unhappy so referred its complaint to our service. One of our investigator’s looked into it, and they recommended it was upheld. In summary, they said Barclays was able to close the account in the way it did and was satisfied it’d done so in line with the terms and conditions of the account; but that Barclays shouldn’t have closed the account immediately and that it should have released the funds sooner than it did. They recommended Barclays pay £750 compensation in total and 8% simple interest on O’s withheld funds between 7 June 2025, when they felt Barclays should have released them, and 29 August 2025 when it did. They also explained that as it’s not a ‘natural person’ O can’t experience distress. And that as a separate legal entity from its director, compensation can only be awarded for the inconvenience suffered by O not that of its director personally. O disagreed. It’s said that the compensation recommended by the investigator does not reflect the severity, duration and cumulative impact of Barclays actions. O has said that Barclays actions caused it to delay the launch of a new product which led to substantial lost income and growth opportunities. O asked for a final decision, so its complaint has now been passed to me for a decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Barclays has strict legal and regulatory requirements it must meet whilst it provides accounts for its customers. Part of these require Barclays to monitor its customers’ accounts, and this sometimes means it may carry out a review, the result of which might mean an account is

-- 1 of 3 --

closed or that it shouldn’t immediately return all or some funds back to a customer. Before Barclays closes an account, it must do so in a way, which complies with the terms and conditions of the account. The terms and conditions of the account, which Barclays and O had to comply with, say that it could close the account immediately in certain circumstances; outside of which it would need to provide notice. Regarding both the decision to close the account and to withhold funds, Barclays has provided details of its decision making process, that I am accepting in confidence - which is a power afforded to me under DISP 3.5.9R(2) of the Dispute Resolution Rules. I’m sorry but I can’t share this information with O due to its commercial sensitivity. A description of this information is that it relates to account use and Barclays’ procedures. On balance when considering Barclays’ wider regulatory responsibilities and all the information available to me, I find it had a legitimate basis for closing O’s account and not telling it why. I don’t however find that, as it has accepted since, Barclays had the right to close the account immediately and I agree that it should have provided O with notice of the account closure. I have considered the withholding of funds by Barclays and whilst I agree it had a legitimate basis for withholding funds initially, there was a significant delay beyond when I believe Barclays should have released them. I also find that O was provided with poor service from Barclays on multiple occasions. So, I’ve gone on to consider the impact this had on O and what Barclays should do to put things right. O has said that it had to delay the launch of a new product which led to substantial lost income and growth opportunities. O has provided evidence showing that it was in the process of gearing up to launch a new product and I accept that this was the case. What we cannot of course know though, is what income or growth opportunities O would have received had Barclays provided notice of the account closure and not withheld funds longer than I find it had a legitimate basis to. This was a new business venture for O and so whatever losses it feels it incurred are of a speculative nature. There is no strong evidence to be able to quantify what losses O feels it incurred. I find that Barclays should have released the funds back to O on 7 June 2025. And so, I find that O was deprived of its funds from this date and Barclays should pay O 8% simple interest a year calculated on the amount of withheld funds from 7 June 2025 until 29 August 2025. This award also incorporates the inconvenience of O not being able to use these funds in whichever way it saw fit and potentially avoid the speculative losses it now feels it incurred. This is in line with our general approach regarding the deprivation of funds. I find that a compensation award of £750, in addition to the interest award for the deprivation of funds, is a fair reflection of the inconvenience O suffered as a whole and a fair way to resolve the complaint. Putting things right I require Barclays to: • Pay O simple interest at 8% a year calculated on the amount of withheld funds from 7 June 2025 up to 29 August 2025. If Barclays considers that they are required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct tax from that interest, it should tell O how much it has taken off. They should also give O a tax deduction certificate if it asks for one, so it can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate. • Pay O £750 for the inconvenience it caused. This includes any amount already paid.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision For the reasons above, I have decided to uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask O to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Mark Louth Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --