TSB Bank plc · DRN-5846202

The complaint Mr B complains TSB Bank plc unfairly restricted and then closed his account. What happened Mr B held a TSB current account which was taken out in October 2009. In late January 2025 Mr B was contacted by the Personal Account Review Unit at TSB Bank (PARU). Mr B was asked about his account activity and the source of funds within Mr B’s account. Following this initial contact Mr B’s account was blocked between 7 February 2025 and 28 March 2025 whilst the PARU team continued with its review. Mr B says he was given no forewarning of this block, and in the days and weeks following this block he contacted TSB multiple times querying the block. Mr B says he also asked for written confirmation of the block so he could inform his mortgage company. The review by PARU led to the decision to close Mr B’s account immediately. Mr B says he wasn’t provided with any reasons for this decision. TSB issued Mr B a letter confirming the closure and the account balance on 28 March 2025. Mr B raised a formal complaint regarding TSB’s actions and the impact its poor handling of his account had on him. TSB’s review found that it had made no errors in its actions. Mr B remained unhappy and referred a complaint to this service. Within the complaint Mr B highlighted his concerns with how the review and closure were conducted and the lack of support and information provided to him. An Investigator gathered the relevant information and in summary, made the following findings: • TSB has numerous legal and regulatory duties, so accounts will be reviewed and some instances blocked. • The account was blocked and reviewed in line with the account terms and conditions. • TSB isn’t under a duty to provide Mr B with notice of this or specific reasons for its decision. • There were no avoidable delays during the block period. • TSB is able to ask questions to meet its duties. • The account was closed in line with the account terms. Mr B disagreed with the review, stating the review by the PARU team involved lengthy and invasive calls, and the block caused immense hardship. Mr B stated he was due to remortgage in May 2025, and this was highlighted to the PARU team, but made no difference to its poor service. Mr B says he was told the account was blocked due to a processing error which wasn’t accurate, and the service received was very poor. The Investigator issued additional findings and maintained the previous outcome – TSB had acted fairly in the circumstances. As no agreement could be reached the complaint was passed to me – an ombudsman – for a final decision.

-- 1 of 4 --

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. Firstly, I am sorry to see Mr B has had cause for complaint and the impact the account review and closure has had on him. I appreciate Mr B was disappointed by the Investigator’s opinion. I’d like to reassure Mr B that I’ve considered the whole file and what’s he’s said. But I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t mention any specific point, it’s not because I failed to take it on board and think about it, but because I don’t think I need to comment on it to reach what I think is a fair and reasonable outcome. No discourtesy is intended by me in taking this approach. Our rules allow me to do this. This simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. Having looked at the complaint fully, my review of the evidence has led me to the same overall conclusions as the Investigator previously set out and for much the same reasons. I will explain why. For the sake of completeness I will also address both the block and the closure as both parties have provided the relevant information I need to reach a fair outcome on this issue. Firstly, it’s important for me to explain that our rules allow us to receive evidence in confidence. We may treat evidence from financial businesses as confidential for a number of reasons – for example, if it contains information about other customers, security information or commercially sensitive information. It’s then for me to decide whether it’s fair to rely on evidence that only one party has seen. It’s not a one-sided rule; either party to a complaint can submit evidence in confidence if they wish to, and we’ll then decide if it’s fair to rely on it. Here, the information is sensitive and on balance I don’t believe it should be disclosed. But it’s also clearly material to the issue of whether TSB has treated Mr B fairly. So, I’m persuaded I should take it into account when deciding the outcome of the complaint. As noted by the Investigator TSB is strictly regulated and must take certain actions in order to meet their legal and regulatory obligations. They can broadly be summarised as a responsibility to protect persons from financial harm, and to prevent and detect financial crime. They’re also required to carry out ongoing monitoring of new and existing relationships. In Mr B’s case TSB’s PARU team carried out a review, in line with the account terms and these responsibilities. This review led to its ultimate decision to close Mr B’s account. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, I am satisfied TSB acted fairly in reviewing and then closing Mr B’s account. I say this as TSB has explained and given me information to show the process it went through when reviewing the account and the factors it considered before making the decision to close the account. Having carefully considered this, I’m satisfied TSB took these actions in line with the obligations it must adhere to, and it wasn’t a decision that was taken lightly. In addition, TSB is entitled to close an account just as a customer may close an account with it. But before TSB 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 Mr B’s account set out that the bank can close the accounts by providing 60 days’ notice. But in some instances, it can close the account immediately. Looking at the evidence provided by HSBC, I am satisfied it met the requirements set out in the account terms for immediate closure. I know Mr B feels TSB has acted unfairly given the lack of information provided to him about the review and closure. Ultimately Mr B would like a detailed explanation as to why TSB took

-- 2 of 4 --

these actions. But TSB isn’t under any obligation to provide this. TSB isn’t under any obligation to provide Mr B with services, and it can choose to end its relationship, in line with the account terms, just as Mr B can end its relationship with Revolut. Ultimately TSB is entitled to set its own policies and part of that will form their risk criteria. It is not in my remit to say what policies or risk appetite TSB should have in place. I can however, while considering the circumstances of individual complaints, decide whether I think customers have been treated fairly. As long as they reach their decisions fairly, it doesn’t breach law or regulations and is in keeping with the terms and conditions of the account, then this service won’t usually intervene. They shouldn’t decline to continue to provide banking services without proper reason, for instance of unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. Based on the evidence provided by TSB I am satisfied it has reached this decision fairly, taking into account its risk guidance and regulatory considerations. I can see Mr B made a DSAR with TSB and says this didn’t provide any rationale. But this doesn’t have to be disclosed to Mr B – even though he has made a DSAR. I understand Mr B was very concerned about the closure, and the fact he had a mortgage review coming up should’ve been factored in. However, I don’t think this is an issue TSB had to consider. It’s regulatory duties and terms of the account are the overriding considerations. A key issue for Mr B is the level of service he received from TSB. Mr B feels he was treated with contempt by staff, and the information he was given was unclear and he was given assurances that TSB failed to deliver on. I can see from the evidence provided Mr B’s contact with TSB was frustrating during this period. I think it’s important to highlight that when a review of this nature is carried out the information that can be shared with the account holder is very restricted. I appreciate Mr B was concerned about the impact the block would have on his finances and payments, but the block was necessary. Mr B has also raised general points about how TSB has explained its actions and the processes it has in place at TSB. It is the role of the Financial Ombudsman Service to resolve individual complaints and to award redress where appropriate. We do not perform the role of the industry regulator, and it is not our role to comment on how businesses conduct their operations. That’s the role of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). For these reasons it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on the review process in place at TSB and how it meets its legal and regulatory duties. Mr B says TSB’s decision to close his accounts caused him significant distress and inconvenience. Mr B says the block and closure ruined his credit file and he missed payments – although I can’t see evidence of this has been provided. I do appreciate this matter would’ve caused Mr B difficulty, as he appears to have used the account regularly. Mr B some notice of the review would’ve assisted him. However, there is no requirement for businesses like TSB to provide notice of an account review. I must also highlight the decision to review and close a bank account immediately can’t be taken lightly given the impact it can have on a customer. Based on the information I’ve seen from TSB I think its decision to close the account in this way was reasonable and taken after it completed a detailed and thorough review. I know this will not be the outcome Mr B was hoping for, and I know he will be disappointed with the decision I’ve reached. I hope it provides some clarity around why I won’t be asking TSB to take any further action to compensate Mr B. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or

-- 3 of 4 --

reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Chandni Green Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --